Author Archives: Rabbi

     It was almost inevitable that a Trump-hating media became focused on the absence of any reference to Joe Biden in the President’s farewell address. Truth be told, I thought it strange as well, even a little churlish, and it sent me – the curious type – to do the research. I found that it is actually not uncommon at all for little or no reference to be made by an outgoing President to the incoming one. Indeed, Trump’s sole reference to his successor – he referred to the next President as the “new administration” – was arguably the most expansive and flowery of all his predecessors. He said: “This week, we inaugurate a new administration and pray for its success in keeping America safe and prosperous. We extend our best wishes, and we also want them to have luck — a very important word.”

     Let’s compare Trump’s salutations with those of prior presidents as they left office and bid farewell to the nation.

     As it turns out, Jimmy Carter in his White House farewell speech in 1981 made no mention at all of Ronald Reagan, calling him just  “President-elect,” and Carter, like Trump, served one term and had to hand over power to the opponent who defeated him. But Dwight Eisenhower, turning the reins over to a Democratic president in 1961, who had beaten Ike’s own Vice-President (also a dubious election), made no explicit reference to John F. Kennedy, just terming him “the new president.” He wished JFK “God speed.” Carter wished the nameless successor “success” in addition to Godspeed (“speed” here meaning “prosper”).

     By contrast, Harry Truman in 1953 mentioned Ike five times, each time calling him “General Eisenhower.” That, too, represented the transference of power to the other party, as happened as well in 1969. In Lyndon Johnson’s farewell, LBJ mentioned Richard Nixon thrice and was quite extravagant in his wishes. In the context of a State of the Union address delivered in Congress, LBJ said:

 “President-elect Nixon, in the days ahead, is going to need your understanding, just as I did. And he is entitled to have it. I hope every Member will remember that the burdens he will bear as our President, will be borne for all of us. Each of us should try not to increase these burdens for the sake of narrow personal or partisan advantage.” He didn’t wish Nixon well.

     Richard Nixon had a singular farewell address that preceded his resignation but Gerald Ford (in 1977) mentioned Jimmy Carter just once, and almost cavalierly, combining his congratulations to Congress, especially its new members, “as I did President-elect Carter.” That’s it.

      In 1989, Ronald Reagan, in a beautifully reflective speech about America, noted towards the end of it that “if we’re to finish the job, Reagan’s regiments will have to become the Bush brigades. Soon he’ll be the chief, and he’ll need you every bit as much as I did.” That’s it. No other reference, and that was the friendliest transfer in the last 90 years.

     Certainly, both the Bush presidents were known for their graciousness and Southern manners. Nevertheless, George H.W. Bush, delivering his farewell address at West Point in 1993, also mentioned Bill Clinton somewhat offhandedly, remarking that ,“ I am proud to pass on to my successor, President-elect Clinton, a military second to none.” The focus was on the military – not on the newcomer who had defeated him.

     Eight years later, in 2001, Bill Clinton, in 2001, after the hotly contested election of 2000, became the first (and to date only) president to actually use his successor’s full name, “wishing our very best to the next president, George W. Bush.” George W. Bush in 2009 stated that “I join all Americans in offering best wishes to President-elect Obama.” But in none of these cases was anything else addressed directly to their predecessors; their focus was on their administration and their aspirations for America.

      In 2017, Barack Obama omitted what had become the customary good or best “wishes” merely noting – to a crowd in Chicago that was jeering – that “I committed to President-elect Trump that my administration would ensure the smoothest possible transition, just as President Bush did for me.” That was it. It is a shame that Obama neglected to mention to the FBI his desire for a smooth transition.

     In any event, the standard farewell address includes expressions of gratitude for members of one’s own administration, staff and family, with an account of successes, and usually a reflection about where America is and should be going. Most presidents listed at least some of what they perceived as their accomplishments; LBJ went further, and urged Nixon to adopt some of his policies. Trump’s three blessings to the new but unnamed administration exceed those of all his predecessors.

     Of course, President Trump broke with tradition in a number of ways, not the best look all in all. He is shunning the inauguration, which is not that shocking given the hostility towards him on Capitol Hill. The presence of former presidents does signal the peaceful transition of power and the stability of American democracy. It also attests to the great skill of politicians who can sit and smile at people they despise even as their eyes shoot daggers. Whether Trump honorably refuses to play the political hypocrite or is just a sore loser probably depends on your politics.

     On the other hand, it would have been proper to call Joe Biden or invite him to the White House for a meeting, anytime in the last two weeks, if not two months. This is not for practical reasons – the bureaucracies are cooperating and Trump never had control over the FBI so Biden need not fear that – but for reasons of decorum and good taste. It need not have been televised but it is appropriate to signify somehow a peaceful change in administrations. Alas it was not to be. In a week or two, none of this will matter but since at least part of Trump’s immediate future rests in Biden’s hands, it would have been worthwhile to meet discreetly and exchange thoughts about the future. About the past, they will never agree.

     None of the presidents in their speeches went overboard on graciousness. That is surprising, until we realize the anguish they must feel in going instantaneously from being the center of attention and the most powerful man in the free world to being a historical sideshow. That is certainly not meant as a rationalization, as graciousness in public life should be a minimum expectation of our leaders. But the content of these orations make it clear that for one last brief and shining moment, they want the spotlight all to themselves.

     Interestingly, the amicability of the transitions appears to be unrelated to the verbiage used toward one’s successor in these farewell addresses. As Trump himself noted, he is the first non-politician (or ex-general) ever elected to the presidency. He came with none of the feigned sincerity, the practiced smiles or the phony geniality that good politicians project. That was his strength as well a weakness, among other strengths and weaknesses that the years to come will surely chronicle.

By two metrics, President Trump’s defeat* in the last election was predictable and should have been anticipated.

First, no President who has been impeached (or nearly impeached) has ever won re-election. It is true that only two (Andrew Johnson and President Trump) were eligible for re-election, and only Trump ran; the other two (Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton) were already serving their second terms. But more to the point, in each instance of impeachment, the party of the impeached president lost the subsequent election. In other words, the Democrats took back the presidency in 1976, the Republicans in 2000, and the Democrats in 2020.

The only exception was 1868, in which the Republicans held the White House. But that election was an outlier, in any event, as was the impeachment. The main instigators of impeachment against the Republican Johnson (a former Democrat) were his fellow Republicans. Oddly, House Democrats overwhelmingly voted not to impeach, and all the Democrats in the Senate voted to acquit. It was one weird time. Even though Ulysses S. Grant was elected as a Republican, he was perceived as the antithesis to Johnson.

It emerges that in each instance of actual impeachment, including 1868, the impeaching party lost seats in the House in the subsequent election (2000, 2020), as if the voters were rebuking them for expending their energies on futile gestures. (Nixon resigned before impeachment and Republicans were clobbered in the 1974 midterms, just three months after he left office.) Yet, notwithstanding the political difficulties caused to the impeachment advocates, it has to date been a foolproof method of removing a president (or the subsequent nominee from his party) from office. Perhaps it so sours the political atmosphere that even an acquitted president is tainted by the experience. 

Is there a message in this for a potential 2023 Republican House majority? One would hope not, and it would be healthy for the republic if impeachment never occurred unless there was a reasonable chance of conviction in the Senate. But as long as impeachment is perceived as an effective political tool, regardless of acquittal, we should expect it whenever the political stars are aligned properly (i.e., a House and President of opposing parties).

Second, there is another metric, and this is extrapolated from the wonderful book by the esteemed presidential historian Tevi Troy, entitled “Shall We Wake the President? Two Centuries of Disaster Management from the Oval Office.” It is a history of presidential responses to the range of catastrophes (natural and man-made) that bedevil society and presidents constantly and usually unexpectedly. The upshot is that no president has ever been re-elected having weathered even one catastrophe during the election year or the year immediately preceding. And President Trump was forced to deal with three, none of his making. By the same token, presidents who are faced with calamities early in their terms (FDR-Pearl Harbor-1941, George W. Bush-Arab terror of 9/11-2001) are re-elected. Strange but true.

The calamities take the form of pandemics, terrorist attacks, weather catastrophes, economic collapses, blackouts, civil unrest (riots) and other such misfortunes.

Let’s look at the history of the last century. Woodrow Wilson not only failed to deal with the Spanish Flu, he actually never addressed the matter publicly (!), even though more than 600,000 Americans died (the equivalent today of 1,900,000 souls). His only private comment was his refusal to allow the pandemic to delay the transport of American troops to the European battlefield (even though soldiers were dying because of the pandemic), and his insistence that the war effort take precedence and the public not be informed about the crisis. Oddly, for this and other reasons, Wilson remains a progressive hero who greatly expanded the power of the presidency, except, obviously, as it could be used to limit the ravages of a pandemic.

Indeed, this book (published in 2016) is an amazingly prescient primer on how to deal with a pandemic, and the recommendations for the average citizen read like they were written six months ago. It makes for informative but eerie reading.

In any event, Wilson did little to stem the pandemic; his party lost in 1920. Although the stock market Crash occurred in the first year of Herbert Hoover’s term, not much had changed by 1932, and he lost his re-election bid. Although the Depression returned with a vengeance in 1937, that was the first year if FDR’s second term and he did not pay a political price for that in 1940.

This is not to suggest that every time the White House changes hands the culprit is a mismanaged crisis. It does imply that a mismanaged crisis will doom a president or his party’s chances in the next election if the crisis is close enough to the election.

Moving forward, LBJ and the Democrats were doomed by the mass riots that erupted in the summers of 1967 and 1968. An inability to control the streets (notwithstanding a president’s fairly limited resources in this regard without a request from local officials) is a sign of chaos and anarchy, and disheartens the good citizens. Jimmy Carter struggled through a recession, a hostage crisis and (during the primaries in 1980) a failed rescue attempt. Ronald Reagan’s recession occurred in the second year of his tenure, as did the Tylenol tampering scare. But Reagan handled both with aplomb and swept to victory in 1984. By contrast, George Bush suffered from a terrible recession in 1991 and 1992 (and broke his word and raised taxes) as well as the mismanaged Hurricane Andrew response in August 1992, and lost his bid for re-election.

Interestingly, Dr. Troy uses as an example of a potential catastrophe averted the Y2K panic in 1999. Bill Clinton prepared well, with committees, reports and actions, so when the calendar changed to 2000, nothing happened. The irony is that, for all the trepidation, no one knows if anything would have happened, but it is good to be prepared. His party lost in 2000 anyway (see impeachment, above) but I do not believe much can be learned from those historically rare but recently more common scenarios in which the presidential victor wins the Electoral College but loses the popular vote. That path to victory is so narrow that each such election is unique.

George W. Bush had to deal with the housing crash, and then economic collapse, in 2007 and 2008, and his party lost the White House in 2008. The outlier, here as in many areas, is Barack Obama, who won re-election despite a tepid economy and the ravages of Hurricane Sandy just a few weeks before Election Day in 2012. In our ultra-modern society, millions of homes (hey, including mine) lost power for well over a week in late October. He paid no price for it, perhaps because then Governor Christie lavished praise on Obama when the latter paid a short visit to the devastated south Jersey area. It would seem that when the president is let off the hook (maybe because the state needs federal dollars) he escapes electoral judgment in the voting booth.

That brings us to the current election. President Trump was not only impeached, but he also had to deal in 2020 with a pandemic, a concomitant economic collapse, and widespread race rioting that lasted months that wreaked havoc on American cities, all of which engendered the sense that the country is anarchic, ungovernable and uncontrollable. It is unthinkable that he could be re-elected with that litany of catastrophe hovering over the electorate. And even with all that, the election results were, shall we say, disputable, worthy of a Roger Maris-like asterisk. (I will re-evaluate this in 30 years, like Major League Baseball did for Maris.)

One other point that emerges from this fascinating and quite readable study is that when disaster strikes, the president will always receive conflicting recommendations from a variety of aides and Cabinet secretaries as to the best course to take. (This is underscored in GWB’s “Decision Points Theater in his presidential library’s where the observer is confronted with the four major crises of the Bush Administration and the range and divergent recommendations he received for each one. The observer is invited to then choose one – and behold the results. Hindsight is 2020.)  When these contradictory and momentous opinions are proffered, the president must have the mental acuity to weigh each one and its consequences, as well as consider the impact of any particular choice on living human beings and on foreign policy.

It is highly pressurized, requires quick analytical and decision-making skills and in almost every case, does not (and cannot) follow a preordained or drafted script. And these decisions cannot be delegated to others, as different agencies will have different priorities and approaches. One would hope the president would possess that type of intellectual perspicacity.

And the reality is that a president can make a wise and rational decision – and the results are still calamitous. There are guidelines but no playbook that can account for every situation.

You wouldn’t wish this job on anyone – and yet so many seem to want it. That being said, let us wish the incoming president health and wisdom to make virtuous and just decisions.

      What a debacle, a series of terrible miscalculations and awful judgment exhibited by all sides of the political divide in America. It has all the markings of a banana republic.

      Who put into President Trump’s head the preposterous idea that the Vice-President has the right to reject the votes of state certified electors? Whoever did is guilty of malpractice or worse. The Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution authorizes the Vice President (in his capacity as President of the Senate) to “open all the certificates” as provided by the States, and then the votes are counted. How that can be construed as certifying, confirming or being allowed to reject said certificates is a mystery. That the President believed whoever told him that reflects poorly on him.

      As stated before, President Trump did not incite or cause an insurrection – the guilty are the perpetrators – but as president he bears responsibility for whatever happens on his watch, especially when, based on the previous paragraph, the rally itself was pointless. Nothing he said can be fairly interpreted as a crime or as dispatching a small mob (most of the participants in the rally went home, so by last summer’s standards, what happened could be called a “mostly peaceful protest”). President Trump showed appalling judgment in not denouncing the attack in real time, something that might have inhibited some of the protesters. The mob should be punished, like all mobs, and politicians of all stripes should denounce political violence of all sorts even when committed by their own supporters. The attack was a horrible stain on American democracy.

     That stain was deepened by the subsequent reaction, including the bans on the free speech of a variety of individuals, including the President, by private companies that benefit from federal regulations that insulate them from liability. That is an evil wind coursing through American society. The ease with which basic freedoms can be suppressed – and the past year has seen the heavy hands of government and major corporations crushing fundamental liberties – should frighten every American, and every citizen of the free world. What happens in America sets an example for the world. It is not only that the world’s dictators are laughing at the dysfunctional American government but more that governments that look to America for democratic guidance will now feel emboldened to repress their populations whenever it suits them.

     Worse is the sham impeachment that took place, something vindictive and absurd. The motivation for impeachment and conviction should be removal of someone unfit from office. A President who is days away from leaving office who cannot be “removed” from office should not be subject to impeachment. The argument that the Democrats seek to bar him from ever running again doesn’t hold water. As I read the Constitution (Article I, Section 3), impeachment and conviction “shall not extend further than to removal from Office and disqualification to hold or enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” (This assumes that political office is one of “honor, trust or profit.” Well, maybe profit.) More to the point, such “disqualification” is a consequence of “removal.” It doesn’t stand alone, otherwise it would permit Congress to impeach and try any politician simply to exclude them from seeking office.

     For example, could a Republican Congress have impeached Joe Biden in 2018, two years after he left office, for a High Crime (having been credibly accused of rape), only to prevent him from running in 2020? Such a thought is ludicrous or Richard Nixon could have been impeached even after he resigned in 1974. (Pardons are ineffective against impeachments [Article II, Section 2]). As a constitutional enthusiast, I look forward to this being litigated in the courts.

     Worst of all is an impeachment without an investigation, hearing, witnesses, testimony or any resembling a fair trial. The rush to judgment has all the markings of a Communist show trial. It sets such a dangerous precedent that one can look forward to impeachments whenever the House of Representatives and the White House are controlled by different parties. Since impeachment is a political act, and all presidents do something that the other party doesn’t like, impeachment can become routine, and a routine waste of time since it is unlikely that any Senate would ever convict.

     And then there is something raised the other day by a Florida congressman, unwittingly channeling the Jewish legal principle of “Ain eid naaseh dayyan” (a witness cannot be the judge). A witness cannot be a judge because of the obvious lack of objectivity that engenders in the “judge.” The blurring of the roles makes fairness impossible. The House effectively sits as a Grand Jury that hands up an indictment of the president. Here the Grand Jury consisted not only of witnesses to the alleged crime but its purported victims as well! Does the victim of a crime ever sit on the jury? Of course not. Potential jurors are routinely excluded if they were ever crime victims so as not to prejudice them against the defendant, much less the victim of the crime being tried. Additionally, in impartial hearings, the accused has the right to defend himself; the rush to judgment here precluded that.

     Why then did the Democrats sprint to impeachment? I don’t buy the notion of wanting to disgrace Trump as the only president ever to be impeached twice. Impeachment has lost is stigma. Bill Clinton did quite nicely for himself after his presidency, and Donald Trump won more votes in his re-election bid than in 2016. (In fact, he is the only president in history to have lost* a bid for re-election while garnering more votes than in his initial election. Go figure.) It is another line in a biography, and for as many people who feel that Trump is thereby dishonored, the same number will feel he is a wrongly persecuted hero.

     My speculation is that the Democrats did this to discredit any attempt to investigate potential fraud in the past election. They will immediately respond that any such allegations instigated a treasonous attack on the Capitol and that anyone who makes the argument or raises questions is similarly treasonous. This will enable them to hasten to make mail-in ballots the norm, the simplest route to fraud.

     Yes, yes, I have heard that there was “no evidence of widespread fraud,” and nothing that would “overturn the results of the election.” Here is why Trump couldn’t legally prove his case of fraud:  For all the shenanigans that people testified to (mail trucks of fake ballots delivered, suitcases of ballots being brought out after hours, ballots of the dead and missing, keeping observers far away so as to render them useless, etc.), he cannot prove that those ballots were for Biden. Ipso facto, the results of the election cannot be overturned, nor is there evidence of widespread fraud. But anyone who believes that there was no fraud because the courts so ruled must also believe that OJ was innocent of double homicide. The judicial system doesn’t always get it right; it is sufficient for a civil society that it gets it right most of the time.

     If the Democrats want to enshrine in law mail-in voting, you will know the fix is in. The fairest electoral system would require a national voter ID, which the Democrats have always ridiculously claimed disadvantages minorities. Why that is so is another mystery; anyone who flies on a plane has to produce identification. In Israel, every citizen has an ID number and such is presented before voting and duly recorded. This way people only vote once, and priority is given to voters who are alive. That would ensure a fair system – mail-in balloting combined with election month is a formula for perpetual mistrust of the system by one side or the other.

     Of course it won’t happen. That is the price of the dysfunction and corruption that afflicts all sides of American politics today with no signs of abatement.

      Rep. Mary Miller, a new Republican Congresswoman from Illinois, was lambasted  by the customary caterwaulers for saying at a (not the) Capitol Hill rally the following: “Each generation has the responsibility to teach and train the next generation. You know if we win a few elections, we’re still going to be losing unless we win the hearts and minds of our children. This is the battle.” So far, so good.

     Then she added: “Hitler was right on one thing. He said ‘Whoever has the youth has the future.’ Our children are being propagandized.”

     Less than a week after she assumed office, there were ubiquitous calls for her resignation. A rabbinical organization with which I am affiliated, the Coalition for Jewish Values, came to her defense in a way, rejected calls for her resignation but noted her unfortunate reference to Hitler, for which, by the way, she promptly apologized.

     It is not a good look to be citing Adolf Hitler in any context but to inform that he was beyond evil, a sick, perverted, malevolent mastermind of the greatest genocide in history. Miller’s context was apt, in that she was underscoring that evil (i.e., Hitler) can easily triumph if the minds of the youth are corrupted, and she openly stated that Hitler was one of the most evil dictators of all time. It was a strong point made inartfully, but the point she made, well taken as it is, could have been substantiated by quoting the Bible or 100 lesser thinkers.

     The broader point is that incessant references to Hitler, Nazis, Storm Troopers and the like have become too prevalent and banal in American society. To seek the resignation of all those who misuse these terms would leave almost no one standing in public life. In the Wall Street Journal the other day, Peggy Noonan, after asserting that she has fought off the temptation for years, finally compared President Trump to Hitler. Arnold Schwarzenegger, better body-builder than politician or thinker, compared last week’s riot at the Capitol to “Kristallnacht.” Nancy Pelosi this past summer compared federal law enforcement officials trying to restore order in America’s riot torn cities to “Storm Troopers.” AOC compared ICE detention facilities to “concentration camps.” Parenthetically, none of these four individuals have been asked to apologize or to resign.

     Here in Israel, it is also not unknown for the epithet “Nazi” to be hurled at police officers, politicians, bureaucrats and the occasional cab driver.

     Good grief. Perhaps some ground rules are in order as to the use of Nazi metaphors.

     Hitler was a genocidal mass murderer without any redeeming features at all. For twenty years, he planned the mass incarceration and then extermination of an entire people. He murdered six million Jews, and scarred several million other survivors and refugees. While doing so, he ignited a world war that consumed tens of millions of other lives.

      Anyone whose deeds do not rise to that level should never be mentioned in the same breath as Hitler. All that does is diminish Hitler’s evil. To compare President Trump – the best president for Jews and Israel ever, not that Jews show any gratitude for it – is obscene; memo to Peggy Noonan and thousands of others. If you need to compare Hitler to someone, compare him to his rivals Stalin and Mao (each of whom murdered more people than did Hitler).

      President Trump, whatever his personal flaws, did not round up millions of innocent people for extermination. Harsh tweets, even harsh rhetoric, are not the same as cattle cars and gas chambers, and the mere suggestion is repugnant to one whose relatives experienced cattle cars and gas chambers.

     Furthermore, on Kristallnacht (November 9, 1938, the “Night of the Broken Glass,”) several thousand Jews were murdered, tens of thousands were arrested and sent to concentration camps, hundreds of synagogues and thousands of businesses throughout Germany and Austria were burned, ransacked and looted. The riot at the Capitol was despicable – but Kristallnacht? The hyperbole is appalling and disgusting, especially coming from a native Austrian. (To me, even calling it an “insurrection” is over the top, just politics. Did the invaders try to seize the government? Did they have a plan to form an alternative government? Did they have any plan at all? t is disgraceful enough that the Capitol was invaded by a motley crew of misfits, clowns, pillagers, and violent trespassers. They should all be in prison – like all rioters and looters – but insurrection?) It is that type of exaggeration that induces publicity seeking polemicists to compare it to Kristallnacht, an insult to Jews who lived and suffered through it and the thousands who then fled Germany in its wake.

     Are law enforcement officials “Storm Troopers” as Pelosi termed them? Well, were these officers trying to restore order or create mayhem? Were they rounding up innocent people for detention, slave labor and execution, or were they trying to protect innocent people and their homes and businesses? The answer is clear, and the epithet Pelosi used was reprehensible, not that she will called to account for it.

     Are ICE detention facilities “concentration camps” as Cortez labeled them? Such a characterization can only emerge from someone who is completely unfamiliar with concentration camps where innocent people (not lawbreakers) were forced into slave labor, malnourished, received no health care, and died in huge numbers when they weren’t being executed. Jews in concentration camps were not held for brief periods of time until their status could be clarified, and then freed.

       Godwin’s Law lives: the longer any discussion goes on, the likelihood grows that someone will compare someone or something to Nazis. Users demonstrate emptiness of thought and an absence of values and historical perspective. Unfortunately, Jews too are not strangers to misappropriating Holocaust references and shooting them at their perceived political foes.

     We need a moratorium on Nazi references, especially when used by politicians as propaganda for their views. Any act that does not reach the level of genocide or potential genocide is not “Hitler, Nazi, or the Holocaust.” Perhaps the only enduring lesson we can learn from Hitler is how easily pure evil can be diluted until it seems trivial, which can only lead to the proliferation of more evil.

     If it is not genocide, leave Hitler and his henchmen out of the discussion. Try to make your points using logic and reason rather than a conversation-stopper born of ignorance.