Minds Made Up

     Why is it impossible today to convince anyone of anything they don’t already believe?

     I have found this to be so at least for the last decade. People’s positions have hardened and most are impervious to reasoned analysis. Even being shown how their arguments are logically flawed, factually incorrect or intellectually unsustainable makes absolutely no headway. Providing examples of their assumptions being proved dead wrong falls on deaf ears. I have been told by too many people whose views were just incorrect or whose opinions I saw as misguided and subject to adjustment based on facts or the disproof of their assumptions something along the lines of: “You are a good debater. I can’t debate you. But this is my opinion and I am sticking to it.” Whether or not words like this are uttered to you, this sentiment is widely held and happens more than we care to admit. It seems as if people would rather donate a vital organ than change their mind about something.

     It doesn’t even matter if the subject at hand is politics, science, history, sports, religion or some other weighty topic. People would rather disengage from a dialogue in which their beliefs might be challenged or refuted than actually confront them, defend them or change them. How did we arrive at such a stage, in which minds are so made up that true dialogue is dead?

     One answer often suggested, and it strikes a chord, is the lack of mutual respect accorded to contrary viewpoints. The oft-repeated trope is that many people on the left perceive people on the right as not just wrong but evil, whereas many people on the right perceive people on the left as fools. It is hard to have a rational conversation with people for whom you have such disdain, although, in truth, it is always tempting to try to educate the fool; that is why people on the right have become the great defenders of free speech. It is distasteful, even morally repugnant, to try to educate people whom you believe are irredeemably evil; hence the contempt on the left for the Western norms of free speech. If people on the right can only articulate “hate speech” (defined as anything with which the left disagrees) then such “hate speech” must be banned. It certainly should not be confronted in any type of discourse, public or private.

     But I think the problem is even deeper than that.

     Leo Tolstoy wrote (The Kingdom of God Is Within You) that “the most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”

     Too many people don’t know what they don’t know, and what they think they know is often wrong but so entrenched in their personalities and value systems that a refutation of those notions followed by a transformation in their thinking would be unbearable. They are thus subject to confirmation bias, assimilating only those points, vignettes, anecdotes or studies that validate their thinking and rejecting (sometimes not even hearing or even entertaining) all others.

     Part of the problem is the existence of “alternate facts,” a phrase unwittingly coined by Kellyanne Conway and mocked by the left-wing media but something, properly understood, that has a ring of truth to it. This is what she meant: people only internalize the “facts” that support their positions and do not recognize the flaws, weaknesses or questionability of those facts. For example, much has been made about the imperative of following the “science.” But what if the science is in dispute? Many scientists tout the effectiveness of mask-wearing during the current pandemic, but others argue and say its effects are positive but limited. Non-transmission requires other factors beyond, and more important, than mask-wearing.    

     Scientists differ on whether or not people with antibodies can be re-infected. Scientists differ on the effectiveness of the hydroxychloriquine protocol, with formal studies bashing it and case studies (I personally know people whose lives were saved by it) endorsing it. Obviously, one’s opinion about these “facts” is influenced by the politics of the matter.

     “Alternate facts” are also fueled by the rise of the self-appointed expert class who presumably know more than the rest of us. Their errors, though, are doozies. In late February, one well known expert, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a top Obama/Biden aide, decried the “overreaction” to the Corona virus and predicted the “warm weather” of summer would end it anyway. He is still advising, opining, and dictating. Not to pick on him, but he is typical of the expertocracy that are as wrong as often as they are right and almost never held accountable for their mistakes. But their mere existence provides the argument that their acolytes are seeking and precludes any dialogue. After all, the science has spoken.

     In another and less polemical or sensitive realm, social science studies that are endlessly circulated by a lazy media have been routinely exposed as bogus. In the language of the trade, it is called the “replication crisis,” because as many as 70% cannot be independently duplicated. They make a big splash upon release, shape people’s attitudes and even values, and turn out to be based on gossamer. Thus, “people who are more analytical are less likely to hold religious beliefs.” Bogus. Or, “students exposed to a text that undermined their belief in free will were more likely to engage in cheating behavior.” Bogus. Add to this list the studies that “prove” that coffee is harmful or not harmful, that low-fat, high-fat, low- carb, high-carb diets are good or not good.

     Part of the problem is small sample size, another is the need to be published (which gets the author fame and more money for grants) but the biggest problem is that the researchers are “searching” for the answer they want, and they almost always find it even if they have to fabricate the conclusions.

     And then, many of the easily replicable studies are replicable because they are so obvious, to the point of being frivolous. Take the recent study that offered the stunning revelation that “children of intermarried Jews grow up with a very weak Jewish identity.” Gee, who would’ve thought that?! I could have saved the sponsors of the study a lot of money. This notion too has been confirmed by a study published this past August: “Laypeople Can Predict Which Social-Science Studies Will Be Replicated Successfully.” You can’t make this up… or maybe you could. Who knows if that study is accurate!

      The idea of “alternate facts” exists in the Torah world as well. The citation of an opinion, no matter how obscure, is accepted on the religious left when it justifies their predetermined conclusion. “I follow Rabbenu Simcha – but only on this!” The recent travesty of the media trumpeting “Orthodox” rabbis performing same-sex marriages is a perfect example. No “Orthodox” rabbi would do that, any more than he would officiate at an intermarriage, endorse the consumption of pork on Yom Kippur or embrace the Trinity as Jewish doctrine.

      When each side to a debate possesses “alternate facts,” reasoned dialogue becomes impossible. And when the “alternate facts” are based on personal stories of hardship and struggle, often very compelling stories but not objective facts at all, then it becomes impossible even to relate to the other side, much less convince or be convinced by them.

     The existence of “alternate facts” has also played a role in the rejection of the concept of objective truth. Each person can possess his or her own truth if there really is no truth – and then go try to persuade them that there is. It is a dialogue of the deaf. Additionally, there was a time not long ago that reasonable people could disagree on issues without making their dispute personal and therefore irreconcilable. It was not just the matter of disagreeing without being disagreeable but mostly that there was a distinction between what is considered “business” and what is “personal.” I certainly had that in the rabbinate for many decades and was blessed with it in Teaneck (we didn’t always agree but it was never personal). Those lines have been blurred, partly because of the determination that some Torah ideas are intrinsically immoral, G-d forbid, and those who express them are beyond the pale. One who holds the “wrong” views on women’s issues, for example, can easily be castigated as benighted, unworthy or worse.

     Finally, minds are made up because, for all intents and purposes, we all live today in an echo chamber of our own creation. (Not me! I’m happy to say that I’ve changed my mind on a couple of things. Like the old saw goes, you should have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.) In the United States it is certainly true. The political division reflects a physical division in the country. Most people live in states that, for example, voted overwhelmingly for Trump or Biden. People now live among their own (certainly in the Jewish world it is like that also), thinking and acting in similar ways, and sharing values and religious beliefs. The coasts tend to be secular and progressive, and the heartland is called the “Bible Belt” for a reason. In New York and California, the free expression of religious ideas is under attack and religious worship is not fully valued by the state.

      The explosion of media has allowed people to get their news from the source that bolsters, but never challenges, their opinions. The “other side” is not presented, as much as it is ridiculed – and, I will say it, the exception being the news programs on Fox News. (The other networks generally offered a Democrat who hates Trump, and for balance, a Republican who hates Trump.) In the prevailing environment, most people therefore simply do not know what they do not know, few have an interest in finding out, and they will never discover that what they “know” just might not be so. Minds can never change as they do not have access to other information that might cause them to change.

     There is a handy solution, which is not to say that it is simple. Seek the truth rather than an intellectual triumph over the other person. Be prepared to act on that truth, for that is intellectual and moral honesty. Be open and intellectually curious. “Who is wise? He who learns from all people” (Avot 4:1). You cannot learn anything while talking to people with whom you agree. So seek out people with whom you disagree, engage them, do not demonize them or their views, and the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions will be refreshing. Focus on facts more than feelings, and rather than refer to numerous studies that prove nothing, can’t be replicated and are often just tendentious, search for moral clarity in the Torah and the Talmud.

      It is there. It is real. “Uncover my eyes so that I may behold the wonders from Your Torah” (Tehillim 119:18). And remember that we are “all presumed blind until G-d enlightens us” (Midrash Breisheet Raba 53:14). We might surprise ourselves and even better our world.

The Way Forward

    Should President Trump concede for the good of the country, recognizing that there is just a 1-2% chance the results of the election will be overturned by the Supreme Court, if these cases ever get there?

    Of course not, and here’s why.

    It is not only that protracted litigation will make it more difficult for Democrats to pull off the same illegal shenanigans and steal the two Senate seats in Georgia headed for a runoff, although that would be sufficient on its own. It is that cheaters should never prosper or, if they do, they should be called to account for it. It strikes me that irrational hatred of Donald Trump was so great that well over 85% of Democrats would have no objection to winning this election even if cheating was the only way, and I would love to be proven wrong.

    We have had prior experiences with Democrat presidential cheating to victory. It is widely assumed that the 1960 election was stolen for John Kennedy over Richard Nixon by 100,000 votes of dead people, primarily from Illinois but also some from Ohio. Nixon was gracious and conceded the next day knowing he was robbed, doing it for the good of the country, not that he received any credit for it. American politics doesn’t reward losers, only winners. In 1960 the country was divided but was not as bitterly polarized as it is today. (Don’t even mention Bush-Gore in 2000. It wasn’t Bush who failed to punch through the chads on the voting cards, thereby invalidating them.)

    It is clear that Democrats are such passionate partisans that they will vote long after they shed their mortal coil. And who says “the dead do not know anything” (Kohelet 9:5)? Apparently they care quite a bit. Here are the credible reports of cheating:

  1. corpses voting (Nevada, Michigan, et al);
  2.  tens of thousands of ballots delivered to presumably-closed counting facilities at 4:00 AM (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia);
  3.  election officials filling in blank ballots and stamping them “Received” (Michigan);
  4.  poll watchers denied access to watching polls, despite court orders (Pennsylvania);
  5. election officials illegally calling Biden voters who had wrongly filled out their ballots and helping them re-vote (Pennsylvania);
  6. voters at the polls discovering that someone had already voted for them (Arizona);
  7. non-residents voting (Nevada, Arizona) and voter rolls never updated used to generate multiple ballots (several states);
  8. voters who never voted and yet had someone vote for them (Arizona, Michigan, Texas, Pennsylvania);
  9.  voters told to use a writing implement that would disqualify their ballots (Arizona);
  10.  election officials illegally covering the windows of their facilities so they could not be observed (Pennsylvania, Michigan);
  11.  Trump ballots thrown out and not counted (Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia);
  12. statistically-impossible numbers of Biden “voters by mail” – in some cases, 100% of vote batches went for Biden (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin);
  13. computer “glitches” that switched thousands of Trump votes to Biden votes (Michigan, and a dozen other states);  
  14. Rogue intelligence officials mucking around the system; and others.

    The interested can easily find videos and affidavits that document all of this.

     Note how the criminality took place in a select number of states. It is astonishing how easy it is to pull off and how difficult to thwart. There were many states that were definite Trump territory and definite Biden territory, and others that were likely Biden and likely Trump. Cheating in those states is a waste of time. Mass cheating is only necessary in a small handful of states, with one or two states set aside for more modest cheating as an insurance policy.

     Thus, Democrats knew that Trump could not win without Pennsylvania and Georgia, and would need Ohio, Michigan or Wisconsin (even two out of three) for a margin. The states therefore that most lend themselves to widespread fraud are those controlled by Democrats at all levels (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin), with Georgia a runner up because of the Democrat domination of Fulton County. That is why unbelievable numbers for Biden were produced in Philadelphia (literally, produced) and Atlanta that overwhelmed all other vote totals. These are districts where you can find thousands of votes for Biden (and Obama) and not a single vote for a Republican.

    The fraud was widespread, obvious, criminal and embarrassing. What is worse is that there is nothing that can be done about it. There really is no remedy. Sure, a handful of people will be prosecuted for election fraud, and nothing will come of that. Each state could appoint a different set of electors but the chance of that happening in Democrat controlled states is 0%. In theory, the Supreme Court could rule that the fraud in any given state was so overwhelming as to invalidate their electoral votes, which, if sufficient in number, would leave both candidates short of the 270 electoral votes needed for victory. There is about a 2% chance of that happening, and most likely, the Court will rule that there was evidence of fraud but not enough to impugn the integrity of any state’s vote, and the results will stand.

     At that point, after the Court rules, President Trump should announce that he was robbed, the election was fraudulent and a disgrace, as he predicted, that Biden is an illegitimate president, but that he will honor the decision of the Court because that is the American way.

     The Democrats and the media they control will cry foul, ironic in light of the refusal of the Democrats to ever acquiesce in the results of the 2016 election, and further insincere given Hillary Clinton’s advice to Biden just last month that he should “never concede defeat.” Republicans well recall the “resistance” that arose the day after the election of 2016 and never stopped. They have plotted coup after coup – including this election – and finally succeeded.

    Trump will leave office as the most successful one-term president ever. He will be bashed for at least 1-2 years, as the Dems will blame all unsolved problems, including Corona, on him. Meanwhile Trump should continue holding rallies, energizing the base, keep Biden’s feet to the fire, blast him for refusing to accept an unrehearsed, spontaneous series of questions from the media, criticize him when necessary, castigate the media for their palpable bias and harm to their profession, return to business  – and announce that he will not run in 2024.

     When Biden’s policies inure to the detriment of American Jewry, they will spin it as positive. In the end, the Jewish vote didn’t count for much, as their states are solidly Democrat. Their party will abandon them long before – but long before – they will abandon their party.

     The people have spoken, and then some. Such is life. H. L. Mencken wrote almost a century ago that “democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” We shall see.

A confident G-d-fearing Israel will fare quite well if it learns again to say “no” when appropriate. We could be having new elections here next March but we are well situated, with G-d’s help, to withstand a Biden/Harris administration.

     And across the ocean, G-d bless America?

     Better:  G-d help America.

Upshots

    The margins are statistically insignificant but politically momentous.

    As the resident political scientist on my block here in Israel, I was asked my predictions for the US presidential election. My answer was that “Trump will win the election and Biden will steal the victory.” So far, my prediction is looking good, as was that of a local Kabbalist who prophesied last week based on verses in this week’s Torah reading that President Trump would win on Election Day. I don’t have any faith in Kabbalists but he was right on target. Of course even he couldn’t anticipate what would happen in the days after Election Day.

     We keep hearing that there is “no evidence of fraud,” which is especially rich when the people proclaiming that are often the ones who are preventing third-party observation of the post-election counting. There certainly is evidence of fraud – lost or tossed ballots, boxes of ballots suddenly showing up at polling places, polling officials (in Arizona, especially) guiding Trump voters to use Sharpies, not pens, so their ballots can’t be scanned, ballot harvesting, backdating mail-in ballots, accepting post-election ballots with no legible postmark, and the sheer impossibility of verifying the legitimacy of unsolicited mail-in ballots that were returned. To perpetrate election fraud on a massive scale in one state, all you really need is a cooperative postal worker, a cooperative polling official and a cooperative vote counter. It is not unrealistic that elements of the US intelligence services, who toiled mightily to deprive Donald Trump of his first victory, could easily manipulate the counting of electronic votes as well. All this will come out in due time and all of it will be to no avail.

     Need it be mentioned that those now trumpeting “no evidence of fraud” were the same people who pushed the Russia collusion hoax for three years with absolutely no evidence at all? Irony is lost on partisans. But such is politics, and fraud is not unknown in presidential politics as those who recall the election of 1960 could attest.

     My neighbors are mostly upset about the returns to date. Most Israelis are huge Trump supporters, not only for what he did for Israel but also because they remember the Obama-Biden years, the terror, the moral equivalence, the pressure on Israel, the threats, the intimidation, etc. But people here are absolutely perplexed about the American electoral system. It is hard to explain how each of fifty states has separate systems – electronic, levers, push buttons, paper ballots, mail-in, absentee, overseas, etc. Each system is overseen by partisan officials and, at least on the state level, by partisan judges. It should be no great surprise that almost every state now in contention, in which the vote totals are changing dramatically, is run by Democrats. As one neighbor said, it is an election system that would embarrass a third-world country. Attempts to reform the system – say, voter ID laws, fingerprint verification to prevent multiple voting by the same person, or even on line voting with individual passwords – are all thwarted by Democrat politicians in order to prevent…you guessed it, voter suppression and voter fraud.

     And how do you say “Electoral College” in Hebrew? I haven’t figured that out. Worse, on the radio this morning, the host was interviewing an American reporter, speaking Hebrew (I couldn’t catch his name), and asked: “why do different states have different numbers of electoral votes? Who decides that?” The journalist hemmed and hawed, and said it is based on “population,” and the host let it go. Yikes. The electoral votes in each state are based not on population but on representation – the sum total of the number of House representatives in each state plus the two Senators. Thus the minimum number of electoral votes a state could have is three (one Congressman, plus two Senators).

     This journalist was being interviewed as an “expert.” One takeaway from the last few years is how journalism has become a lazy profession. It is not that journalists don’t work hard – many do – it is that so much reporting is based on polls. Someone takes a poll, and the results are a story, regardless of the subject or accuracy of the polls, and the results are supposed to reflect the will of the people, which is preposterous. And journalism loves anniversaries, because such retrospectives are easy to write and mostly fluff filling empty space.  Between the polls, the anniversaries, and the agenda each outlet pushes, journalism is in a sad state. It will get worse because it will be impossible for Biden to grant the same access to the press that Trump did, and the press will cover for Biden as it has throughout the campaign. Hunter Biden will disappear, as will interest in Trump’s tax returns.

     It is too early for a post-mortem, which in civilized societies awaits a corpse, and even though anything can still happen the trends are not looking promising for the Republicans. Sure, against all predictions, the Republicans will retain the Senate and made inroads in the House, but the presidency is the big prize. And although it is somewhat farcical to ask how someone won or lost in an election that hangs on a rounding error of votes, it still must be pursued: how could President Trump lose to a career politician of no great accomplishment, who is ethically challenged, and whose cognitive abilities are in such decline that is inconceivable that he will still be president in four years? How is that possible?

       Some will point to Trump’s handling of the Corona virus, unfair because no country has a handle on it, and others to the relentless opposition of the Resistance that is now four years strong. People just want a respite, and voted against their interests to do it. They feel, correctly, that a Trump defeat will not provoke massive rioting and looting by his supporters, because, after all, why would Republicans burn down their own stores? The whole point of looting is to burn down someone else’s business. They want peace and quiet, probably at some cost to their liberty, and so they don’t consider that they might wind up with neither peace nor liberty. Expect a reckoning – an explosion of political correctness, the suppression of contrary opinions, a boost to public shaming of dissidents, and a crackdown on the free exercise of religious worship. Sacred doctrines will be trampled in order to promote new orthodoxies. Everyone who doesn’t toe the BLM line will be tagged as a racist. America will become a more unfriendly environment in which to live.

      If Trump loses, why will he have lost? The simple explanation is always that the loser did not get enough votes, and here, Trump, not a politician, made the mistake of never reaching beyond his base. In fact, he seemed to delight in offending large groups of potential voters as long as he energized his most faithful supporters. And he did increase his vote total substantially, but his opponents increased theirs even more. The media helped, always interpreting Trump’s musings in the most unfavorable light possible to further their own anti-Trump agenda. Again, remember Salena Zito’s astute observation that Trump’s enemies take him literally but not seriously, while his supporters take him seriously but not literally. It is hard to survive the daily drumbeat, the drip-drip, of negativity to which Trump was subjected for four years, including off-the-record comments that were soon on-the-record, and illegal intelligence leaks from the Oval Office that titillated his enemies but will no longer be tolerated in a Biden/Harris White House.

     Trump lost because he lost the game of extremes. I have never seen a president this loved and this hated. No one was neutral, and it was a joke that on election eve, pundits still spoke of “undecideds.” People shouted at him “We love you” at rallies, something unprecedented in American political history. And many, many people absolutely loathed him for reasons that I have never quite understood, but loathing of the foaming-at-the-mouth type. Every breath he took, every word he uttered, and even every good thing that he did was a dagger right in their eyes. In their view he could do nothing right or decent, ever.

      Four years ago, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both evoked these strong feelings. She too was reviled by many, loved by many (but without the ardor that Trump aroused in his supporters). It was a clash of two divisive individuals, and Clinton turned out to be slightly more detested.

      This year was different. Biden, doddering, doltish, corrupt politician that he is, does not evoke any hatred in people. He may not be liked by everyone but he is reviled by almost no one. In a choice between a polarizing President on the one hand, who, for all the good that he did in office, still provoked unremitting disgust among his foes, and a mushy, smiling, befuddled careerist on the other, the amiable oldster prevailed (maybe). Even people’s burgeoning 401-K’s were not enough to overpower this irrational abhorrence of Trump that so stirred his enemies.

     The irony is that four years ago only Donald Trump could have defeated Hillary Clinton. An out-of-the-box Republican was needed to confront and overcome that corrupt establishment. But this year, only Donald Trump could have lost to a senescent Joe Biden. Any other Republican – a Pence, a Haley, a Cotton, maybe even a Cruz – would have swept to victory. Trump’s negatives were just too high, and the fact that he never made a concerted effort to reduce those negatives should be his post-election analysis. Whatever cheating is going on, this election, given Trump’s record, should not have been that close.

     He bet that if he made the election a referendum on himself, he would win. So far, that bet has not worked, and given the machinations of the system that are difficult to surmount, it will not work.

     His legacy will be as the most consequential one-term president since James Knox Polk, a man who made substantive campaign promises and fulfilled many, if not most of them, revived an economy, fought no unnecessary wars, revolutionized the Middle East, put America first, and restored pride in the American experiment.

      America’s enemies across the globe are celebrating. That should dampen the jubilation among Biden voters, and all Americans, who face a bumpy, uncertain road ahead.

The Jewish Democrat

      It is especially fascinating how hard-core, confirmed, lifelong and forever Jewish Democrats will twist themselves like a pretzel to find a reason to vote for the Democrat despite the evidence that there is little in the interest of Jews, Israel or America to support a Biden vote. But it is actually the same arguments in every election, whether the election is for President, Congress, state or local officials. Here’s a sampling:

The Republican hates Jews.
The Republican loved Jews in his first term but will hate Jews in his second term.
The Republican loves Jews but he has supporters who hate Jews.
The Republican loves Jews too much and so his support for Israel has been detrimental to Israel’s long term interests.
The Republican loves Jews but it is critical that support for Israel be bipartisan.
The Republican loves Jews but the Democratic Party cannot be abandoned to those who hate Jews.
The Republican loves Jews but we are not so parochial that we vote only according to what’s in the Jewish interest.
The Republican loves Jews but he doesn’t denounce every single hate group in every single speech no matter how obscure the group is.
The Republican loves Jews so much that Jewish support for him will embolden white supremacy.
This Republican loves Jews but Harry Truman, a Democrat, recognized Israel and we owe him a debt of gratitude.
This Republican hates Jews – and he proved it by doing so many things that helped the Jews that he thereby emboldened the white supremacists.
This Republican hates Jews – and he proved it by allowing Jews and Jewish institutions to be attacked with impunity in Democrat-run cities.
This Republican hates Jews – and he proved it by declaring that religious worship is, and synagogues provide, an “essential service” during the pandemic, thus attempting to kill Jews.
This Republican hates Jews because he is a Republican and only Democrats love Jews.
This Republican hates Jews because he doesn’t believe in climate change, which will eventually destroy the planet and kill all the Jews.
This Republican loves Jews but his temperament is un-Jewish.
This Republican loves Jews or hates Jews (the record is unclear) but Joe Biden must love Jews because he is a Democrat.

This Republican loves Jews or hates Jews (the record is unclear) but Kamala Harris is married to a Jew and so must love Jews.

This Republican loves Jews but all of my ancestors always voted Democrat.This Republican loves Jews but I am a Democrat.

While this seems like a parody, it is not. It is a compilation of all the reasons that I have heard from Jewish Democrats as to why they cannot vote for the most pro-Israel, pro-Jewish President in American history, and a President who has brought peace, strength and prosperity.

We are supposedly an “am chacham v’navon” as well as a nation that values gratitude. But we also have a long and lugubrious history of making poor political and strategic choices for which have paid an awesome price. I don’t expect any change but take comfort in that G-d’s providence watches over the nation of Israel. It doesn’t always protect every Jew but it does ensure that Am Yisrael Chai.

Fortunately that is even more certain that the Jewish vote for the Democrats.