Author Archives: Rabbi

     The fall from grace has been as sudden as it has been spectacular. Exactly a year ago, Barack Obama was anointed (inaugurated is too tepid a word) president amid expectations that soared in the stratosphere that he would shortly bring world peace, usher in an era of prosperity, reverse global warming, and perhaps even produce a Cubs World Series victory. After a year of rhetorical flourishes and mindless spending, peace is as elusive as ever, prosperity more elusive than it could have been, and the Cubs missed the playoffs. It is, though, a colder than expected winter across the United States.

     The media pumped up Obama, as now they trumpet the charisma of the new junior Senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, who may save both the nation and Obama himself from the excesses of liberal governance. Americans, like residents of democracies generally, are fickle (see under : Israeli elections), but America has always had a powerful streak of individualism and personal responsibility that made the “welfare and nanny states” either anathema or necessary evils – but evils nonetheless. The pendulum swings back: Americans resent high taxes that simply re-distribute wealth from the productive to the non-productive;  Americans desire freedom of choice that makes mandated health insurance distasteful, and reject the payment of higher premiums in order to subsidize the irresponsible and neglectful; Americans chafe under any restrictions on speech, especially political speech, and never quite understood why corporate financing of campaigns was limited but not union financing of campaigns. (Corporations would at least use company profits they earn in the free market; unions use the dues they forcibly extract from their members. Citizens who resent the political choices of the corporation can take their business elsewhere; union members cannot).

    The saddest conclusion is one that could have been anticipated during the campaign but was clouded by the smokescreen of lofty rhetoric, Bush-bashing and racial-triumphalism: Obama is in over his head. That he could freely admit that he was “overconfident” about the feasibility of Mideast peace shows that he was not well schooled in the essentials of that conflict. That he could recklessly promise to close the Guantanamo detention camp– that has worked well in keeping terrorists incarcerated and Americans safe, despite (and maybe because of) the global propaganda campaign against it – within a year (that has just passed), and ban the water boarding that had been successful in extracting information from several murderous thugs, reveals a naiveté about the nature of the enemy we face and the tools we have in facing it. That he confuses words for deeds shows a distorted approach to governance. After a year of little else than speeches and spending, Americans are dissatisfied, and blaming President Bush for everything is wearing thin. (I don’t recall Reagan blaming Carter after inheriting an even worse economy, marked by high inflation, interest rates and unemployment. Memo to President Obama: there are business cycles. Get used to it.)

     Leaders in trouble will often seek scapegoats, and President Obama has this week set his sights on the bankers and their “obscene” profits and bonuses, a convenient and populist but misplaced target. Since I am not a banker nor beholden to them, I can speak freely. Profits are the objective of any business, and bonuses should reward those who contribute to the production of profit. It is harder to understand the eagerness to tax the bonuses because the banks took federal (TARP) money as part of the BUSH (not Obama) bailout, for two reasons: The banks that are paying bonuses have largely paid back the Treasury plus interest for those loans, so why should there be any further liability ? Secondly, the bonuses received by the bankers are already taxed as income, so why should there by a second, special tax levied against these particular profiteers ? The Constitution would seem to prohibit that as a “bill of attainder,” and a policy that burdens successful businesses more than unsuccessful ones will stifle free enterprise, kill jobs, and move businesses – and banks – overseas.

     Of course, the Obama treasury needs a quick infusion of cash because of the reckless, mindboggling spending of the past year. Bush, too, was harshly – and rightly – criticized for deficit spending, but a quick equation is in order to dramatize the desperate situation the President faces: Obama in one year equaled the total Bush deficit of eight years. That is spending. Or this: the number “trillion” has lost its sense of remoteness and inaccessibility. We speak of spending money or running deficits in the trillions as if it were a figure we can truly grasp.

     Obama’s future is bleak, although by no means does that portend an electoral defeat in 2012. Politics is not like that at all. He can certainly rein in his excesses, govern from the center (in the cliché of the week, although that would undoubtedly offend his liberal base), and let the markets freely and fairly dictate economic winners and losers. He can put the endless Middle East conflict on the back burner, and let Israel grow, build and defend itself. The next election will be shaped by a still unidentified Republican challenger – and Republicans too should avoid the growing tendency to showcase celebrity rather than substance – and by events yet to happen. The economy will undoubtedly bounce back, as will jobs, unless business is further encumbered by stifling taxes and regulations that make hiring unprofitable and unwarranted.

     “Bleak” in this context refers to Obama’s ability to influence events, to lead rather than just talk, to speak in specifics rather than just the generalities to which he has become accustomed. It will require a shift in personality and character. (He should lose the “black” accent he affects when speaking to the “common man,” droppin’ his gee’s and praisin’ everybahdy; it is unbecoming a person born in Hawaii, raised by a white mother and white grandparents in white society, who attended Columbia and Harvard. It is worse than phony.) Many of his policies will be adjusted to fit the needs of the Democratic candidates in the 2010 elections, and then adjusted again to meet his own needs. That itself is problematic, a state of affairs in which everything – but everything – is guided by the goal of winning the election, and not at all about governance or statecraft. And that is how he got elected in the first place, and we – and the world – are suffering for it.

     Every president has to learn on the job, but no one should have to learn everything on the job. When that happens, it is not the fault of the candidate but the fault of the electorate.

 NOTE: This essay will appear as an op-ed article in next week’s Jewish Press.   

   Like the general who hones his military strategy by fighting the last war, America’s politicians and some of its counter-terrorism experts are engaged in thwarting future terrorist threats by diligently preparing for the past. Muslim-Arab terrorist hijack planes (this actually dates back to the 1960’s, not 2001), and all passengers and the luggage must be carefully searched. A Muslim “shoe bomber” attempts to explode an aircraft in 2001, and all passengers thenceforth must have their shoes inspected before boarding. Another Muslim – the recent “underwear bomber” – tries to do the same, and all passengers, as soon as feasible, will be subject to body scans and intrusive searches. And the likelihood that another Muslim will try to explode an aircraft with a bomb smuggled in his carry-on, shoes, or underwear? Slim, at best. The terrorists move on, adapt their strategies to the new restrictions and develop new means of potential mayhem. And we still fight the last war. Why?

     The sad truth is that America, Israel and the West generally do not have a plan for victory, and, for the most part, do not even speak of victory. President Obama, who never utters the words victory or terrorism, articulated a plan that is fundamentally defensive in nature – more TSA workers, more screening, more invasive searches, etc. – but does not begin to address the reality of the enemy that has declared war on civilization. The focus is almost exclusively on what is called “the protocol” – having the right system in place so that in the event of a catastrophe, the politicians and bureaucrats can cover their tracks and rely on “the protocol” – even if “the protocol” is either unnecessary or ineffective in dealing with the threat. They are procedures that are more intended to save jobs than save lives, and unnecessarily inconvenience millions rather than expose the few hundred likely villains.

    Who but a bureaucrat living in a bureaucratic bubble could have devised a system in which passengers using the self check-in system at the airport (or on-line) are asked whether or not they are carrying bombs, weapons or other hazardous items? For the overwhelming majority of passengers, the question is obviously ludicrous – and for the miniscule few to whom it might apply, can we seriously expect a truthful answer? Did the bureaucrat assume that a Muslim might blow up an airliner and murder hundreds of innocents, but would never lie about it? Or did he expect that some would answer truthfully (“yes, I have a small explosive device in my left shoe, thank you for asking”), and thereby engender the “reasonable suspicion” needed to make further inquiries? One additional question: seven years into the security afforded by TSA: have they apprehended even one Arab terrorist at an airport checkpoint? Not to my knowledge, although the TSA is doing a banner business in shampoo and water bottle confiscations.

      In a world in which anyone with a functioning intellect and below-average vision sees that all terrorists are Muslims, even if not all Muslims are terrorists, the solution to the air terrorism problem lies mostly in screening all Muslims and Arabs – i.e., racial profiling. At this point in time, not to single out potential perpetrators from the masses of innocents is political correctness run amok, or, said another way, rank insanity. Israel routinely profiles based on race – and we have all experienced the pointed questions of the El Al interrogators (“When does Tu B’Shvat fall?”) that are intended to weed out the few who, by their answers, mannerisms, facial expressions, or Arabic accents, require special attention.

      In a perfect world, it would be nice to treat everyone equally, but in a perfect world, everyone would act decently. The world is far from perfect, and a defined group – Arabs and Muslims – have created a scourge that has murdered thousands of people across the globe, heightened the anxieties of billions more, and lust for even more spilled blood. The extent to which guiltless Arabs and Muslims are offended by this discrimination has an upside to it: they can trigger a revolution in their societies to denounce, ostracize and eliminate these miscreants from their midst, the only long-term solution to this evil.

      Will such a policy engender anger and hatred against Western society by these same guiltless Arabs? Anyone who believes that is actually part of the problem, having swallowed the propaganda fostered by those with perpetual and unassuageable grievances against civilized mankind. Despite the hostile anti-American propaganda emanating from the Arab world, America still opens its doors and universities to Arab students. Perhaps this outreach should also be re-considered while the war rages, especially from countries or regions where terrorists are coddled and/or supported.

     The broader problem is the “lawyerization” of conflict that is an affliction of the modern left. In the drive for perfect equality and the obliteration of any distinctions between the good and the evil, the rights of the few imperil the protections of the many. Thus, the left recoils at the notion of racial profiling because the innocents in the defined class will be offended. Law, then, serves to destabilize society rather than promote its general welfare.     

      That is also the message sent when terrorists who attack Americans and others are treated as common criminals – defendants rather than ruthless thugs who wish to die and so do not deserve life. Certainly the protections afforded to soldiers by the Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists – to combatants of non-state actors who do not wear uniforms and prey on ordinary citizens.

      Similarly, in two other examples of the growing incapacity of the political left to combat the evil within, Israel’s High Court recently ordered the re-opening to Arab traffic of Highway 443 – a major artery linking Modiin and Yerushalayim – years after Arabs were barred from that road because of their persistent terror. Clearly, the price for the Court’s “moral” vision will be dead and maimed Jews. Equally as clearly, the Court is adamantly refusing to recognize that a state of war exists between two societies in the land of Israel, and that the rights of civilized citizens should take precedence over the rights of hostile non-citizens.

     And in what should be a bit a bizarre satire but is not, Israel’s Chief of Staff directed that the IDF consult with legal advisers during military operations (instead of in the planning stage, as is done now) in order to ensure compliance with international law. Perhaps each soldier should also be provided with a personal lawyer on retainer (in addition to a weapon and a mess kit) that he can consult before firing his weapon or artillery. Such a ruling does more than merely impair military efficiency and morale; it sends a message to the enemy of weakness, vacillation, vulnerability and loss of will to win. It does not underscore that we are better – we know we are better – but that we are more foolish, allowing enemies of civilization to exploit our freedoms and moral aspirations and use them as weapons against us, at the same time they are unencumbered by any such commitments.

      Taken together, the criminalization of terror, the eschewing of profiling, the opening of one major highway (surely to be followed by others) to terrorists and the supporters and facilitators of terror, and the lawyerization of warfare – all desired objectives of the enemy because it weakens the ability of moral man to fight – demonstrate that the American and Israeli political/judicial left are incapable of fighting a modern, asymmetrical war.

     It should be obvious that society must make choices, and must carefully choose to inflict minor inconveniences on some in order to protect the rights – and the lives – of the many. The search for perfect justice – a fantasy of the left – unwittingly strengthens and perpetuates evil, enervates our will to win, and victimizes the good and the decent, who, if not defeated first, will surely arise and come to their senses, vanquish the external enemy and overcome the perverters of justice and morality within our countries. We can assist by holding accountable our politicians and leaders – in the United States and Israel – to the standards of decency and morality that are practicable during the course of a protracted and ugly war, and thereby hasten the day when the foes of mankind will be subjugated and humbled.