W. Doesn’t Care. He Doesn’t Have To.

Lyndon Johnson just wanted to be popular.

Despite all of his landmark legislation and accomplishments in office—at least before the Vietnam war and the events of 1968 left his legacy in tatters—LBJ couldn’t get anyone to like him. (When he asked one of his advisers why no one liked him, the adviser told him point black: “Because, Mr. President, you’re not a very likeable man.”)

Bill Clinton has succeeded where LBJ failed. His performance and reception at the DNC last night reminded us—and him—that his likeability is his greatest political and personal asset, and ultimately is his best tool in solidifying his legacy.

Regarding our current President, it’s hard to fathom what motivates him beyond his need to overtake his father and the rest of his family. Much has been made of his religious convictions and his recovery from alcoholism (and possibly worse), but a case could be made that he needed to adopt some salient system of discipline if he was ever going to amount to anything, and at age 40, these were the best options available.

I think W. is, and remains, the slacking underachiever who had other people always do his work for him, had his greatest success as a figurehead governor with no real power, and governed as President much the same way by serving as spokesperson and figurehead for people and forces larger than himself and not having to engage in effort beyond a certain level.

He also, aside from (and maybe even because of) his apparent thin skin regarding what his father thinks of him, is probably impervious to any kind of criticism from any other quarters, and doesn’t really give a damn about his poll numbers or if he truly bears any responsibility for the shape he’s leaving the country in, if indeed it even occurs to him that things are much messier now than they were in 2000.

None of that matters to him. He’s already been the Most Powerful Man In the (Free) World for two terms (take that, Dad), and all he had to do was play to the camera.

W. was never “dumb”. He might be the most intellectually lazy occupant of the Oval Office in American history, and I would venture that said indolence far outweighs his actual intellectual limits. He was, and is, generally oblivious to any notions of empathy, almost as if he had a political—if not clinical—form of Aspbereger’s syndrome. When he said he “didn’t do nuances”, it wasn’t that he weighed and rejected the notion; it was that it just wouldn’t register it anywhere in his mind.

Kanye West said that Bush didn’t care about Black people. He was half right. Bush doesn’t really care about any people. He doesn’t care if he’s liked or not. He doesn’t even care about his legacy.

Bara-calculus

Barack Obama is apparently miscalculating twice over by allowing the Hillary Clinton roll call and by giving the Clintons quality face time at the convention. This came essentially from the same people who declared his trips abroad to have been ultimately self-defeating.

These notions are reflective of a considerable degree of conservative wishful thinking.

What they should find more frightening is the possibility that Obama may be taking strategies from the Karl Rove playbook, and that they might work: first, by shoring up his base, and second, by actually campaigning as a “uniter” when he has no intention of governing as one.

He has been shoring up his base in two ways: first, by actually acknowledging the considerable historical import of the Clinton campaigns—Bill and Hillary both—without worrying that they might overshadow him. By giving them such floor time he links his campaign with the only Democratic success story of the past 40 years (the Carter administration emphatically does NOT figure in this equation). In other words, Yes [H]e Can, just Like They Did.

Additionally, by allowing even the idea that he didn’t get a majority of the popular vote to float about the convention floor, he gives credence to the notion that sometimes the electoral system does NOT always necessarily directly reflect the will of the people, and that just like W. won his office that way, the Democrats should acknowledge that they might need their own version of 2000 to win, and they should have no qualms about it.

His travels abroad actually had a similar effect. Europeans obviously can’t vote for him, and his immediate poll numbers may have suffered in the short-term. However, by playing to the multi- and internationalists back home, he demonstrated that he would govern with them primarily in mind, at least as far as foreign affairs are concerned.

Finally, despite some of his more recent “flip-flops” and ostensible moves to the center, Obama essentially remains an income-redistributing internationalist who intends to bring American socialism into the political mainstream the way Reagan brought solid conservatism into the mainstream, and then to the “permanent majority” so eagerly sought by the Rovian minions.

Generally, the Democrats’ attempts at tit-for-tat payback for the Republicans’ shenanigans during the Clinton years—from the “irrational” hatred of the sitting President to the impeachment threats—have not worked in their favor. This time they may actually succeed.

At the convention last night, Teddy Kennedy asserted that Obama would “close the book on old politics.” Kennedy couldn’t have been more wrong. Obama’s campaign may yet rewrite the book on “old politics”.

The Convention: Regular Season Begins

“Politics [is] allegedly a non-contact sport and certainly not much of a spectator sport…our political conventions are by and large devoid of drama and suspense.”

In the above quote, the late David Halberstam was trying to explain why Americans are more inclined to watch football, rather than, say, baseball, the Oscars, or the political conventions.

I don’t watch the political conventions for the same reasons that I don’t really watch the Oscars. If I want to hear speeches I can go to the synagogue; as much as congregations complain, no sermon ever goes on for four hours with commercial breaks, even (and especially) on Yom Kippur.

In any case, it’s no accident that Halberstam compares politics to football, or even that the conventions are planned so close to football season. It has been said that politics is show business for ugly people; I would venture that it more resembles athletics for the uncoordinated. The sport to which it has been most compared to, is of course, football, which follows somewhat from the obvious military imagery (the suitcase with our country’s nuclear launch codes is the “football”) to Sen. Eugene McCarthy’s assertion that running for office was like coaching football: one had to be smart enough to understand the game and dumb enough to think it was actually important.

However, the most salient features of today’s politics are more reflective of whose “team” one is on more than what one’s true beliefs or ideals really are. In the United States, that for the most part leaves us with a two-team league. Unfortunately, this means that every game pits the same two teams against each other, over and over again. This reminds me of how much I was suffering during this past year’s Super Bowl week: as a rabid Jet fan, I had to choose between the Pats and Giants. Imagine that every game, every week, on every channel (Basic! Premium! IO! DTV! Satellite!) was Pats vs Giants. Pre-season. Regular season. Playoffs. Super Bowl. Now maybe one understands why partisan politics drive Americans nuts.

Although, it should be said, most football fans would watch even the NFL even if it only had two teams. Including me. I suppose one might say a similar phenomenon exists in politics. Somebody's going to watch the conventions.

For the record, I rooted for the Pats in the Super Bowl. I didn’t want to have to deal with the consequences of a (possible [CHOKE]) Giant upset. I also was hoping that the Pats would finally knock the Miami Dolphins off the “undefeated” pedestal. Besides, to my mind, Don Shula embodies football evil incarnate far more than Bill Belichick. And Shula didn’t need a hoodie to radiate malevolence; ask any NFL official who had to deal with him. Or Walt Michaels.

(Imagine this presidential election: Belichick vs Shula. I'd write in for Parcells.)

Disengagement, Three Years On

There is a concept in Kabbalah that when an engaged couple calls off a wedding, both parties have to ask forgiveness from each other to avoid possible uncomfortable cosmic consequences.

The third anniversary of Israel’s “disengagement” from the Gaza Strip occurs today, August 15th. The question of the disengagement’s advisability has been inexorably tied to many larger issues at the forefront of the Israeli and Middle Eastern scene, so it continues to be debated vigorously inside and outside Israel.

Recently an Israeli soldier anonymously published an open letter apologizing to the former residents of the Gaza Strip for her participation in evacuating the settlers from their homes and ruining their lives. She invited former residents to air their feelings to her via email.

I would posit the soldier has nothing to feel bad about. One might retort the Gaza settlers should apologize to the rest of the Israeli nation for what might be termed as an act of political blackmail. In any case, though, any time for apologies has long passed.

It might be true that there has been incessant political bungling following the disengagement which reflects badly on the execution of the disengagement and its aftermath, but that shouldn’t necessarily reflect on the saliency of the idea that it was carried out in Israel’s best interests and no one else’s. I don’t say this because I am a partisan proponent of the “peace process”. Far from it. I don’t think any legitimate “Palestinian” political or geographic entity exists, certainly not one that entails a state that encompasses two geographically disparate territories. For the record, I would have loved to have seen Israel unilaterally annex the West Bank and Jerusalem after the disengagement, but that would have been a political impossibility. Unfortunately.

However, it just might be that the Arab—or non-Jewish populations—in either respective territory posses some degree of political self-determination. With the Arab population in Gaza outnumbering the Jewish population in Gaza on the order of at least 75 to 1, and the disparate allocation of security and defense resources to protect a civilian population that made up 1/500 of Israel’s population was becoming politically and morally untenable. Additionally, whether or not there was a “demographic time bomb” that truly threatened Israel’s existence as a democracy and a Jewish state, the evacuation took a large chunk of that number out of play, especially since the Gazan birth rate is undoubtedly faster (in spite of the area’s intense economic stresses).

What made the Israeli population and government so angry and unsympathetic toward the Gazans was not just their insistence that their civilian presence was critical, but the impression they gave that said presence was religiously mandated, which only served to add fuel to the fire. Additionally, any argument that the disengagement was a natural consequence of the Oslo process and a stepping stone toward the establishment of either a bi-territorial Palestinian state, a secular “bi-national” Palestinian entity, or worse, an Islamic emirate was rather spurious if not outright disingenuous. Sharon spokesman Dov Weisglas’ slip regarding the cessation of all territorial withdrawal after the Gaza disengagement should have given the lie to both of the Gaza settlers’ purported grievances. The disengagement was not about creating a viable Palestinian entity; it was about Israel unilaterally absolving herself of any responsibility for the administration of the Strip, even if (and probably because) it would render the Strip a political no man’s land.

Irrespective of whether or not the disengagement was a good idea that was bungled, the question remains is Israel better off without having a civilian settlement in the Gaza Strip? I would say that it gives Israel one less headache, though one could credibly assert that is has incurred worse ailments as a result.

I am not unsympathetic to the individuals and families suffering as a result of the forced evacuation, in spite of my absolute opposition to their political stance. However, I think a harsh lesson can be learned by everybody here, as to why expectations of remorse are irrelevant, if not counterproductive:

The government is not your friend, no matter who or where you are.

Polygamy and the FDLS: American Sacred Prostitution

About a decade ago, there was widespread press coverage of a purported phenomenon in the Orthodox Jewish community whereby the practice of taking a concubine in addition to one’s current wife had been revived in some circles for the first time in nearly a millennium. After further research it had been determined that the gentlemen in said circles were likely having enough trouble procuring one wife, let alone multiples. That they refused to identify themselves, or that their proclamations had no credible basis in any Jewish legal framework, was anticlimactic. In more ways than one.

Recently, the FDLS/Yearning for Zion ranchers seem to have garnered an inexplicable level of sympathy for their obviously self-inflicted plight. Last week, the New York Times Magazine published a photo essay of its residents, and John Stossel ran a very sympathetic, if not outright supportive, op-ed in the Sun.  Stossel quotes “polygamy activist” (!) Mark Henkel: “Someone like a Hugh Hefner will have a successful television show with three live-in girlfriends! …But suddenly, if that man was to marry them, then suddenly he's a criminal. That's insane!”

First of all, the women in Hefner’s life can walk out at any time (though that’s obviously easier said than done). The “liberating” aspects of the Playboy Mansion lifestyle for women are eminently debatable; the flexibility of their relationship with Hef, as opposed to any woman in a bigamist marriage, is not.

Second, there is no doubt at all that Hef and the Playmates are either NOT trying to have children, or trying to NOT have children. Consequently, familial collateral damage is nonexistent. This is obviously not the case in polygamy, where the “wives” are often children themselves.

During the Tom Green bigamy trial in 2002, Nat Hentoff wrote in the Village Voice that he was surprised that more liberal groups (read: ACLU) were not rushing to Green’s defense. Hentoff thought that a parallel could be drawn from polygamy to other cases of “unconventional” relationships (read: gay marriage). Hentoff seemed to be ignoring the fact that the level of consent between parties in polygamous relationships was not a factor in play the way it was in the other ones, as can be proven by the dynamics of the marriages, not to mention the behaviors of its most prominent practitioners.

A stark illustration of such lack of consent was provided in the August 4 New Yorker story by William Dalrymple about the persistence of sacred prostitution in some Indian states, from which two strong analogs to the practice of modern-day polygamy can be drawn. One, the obvious lack of consent involved in contracting underage polygamous marriages—whether the consent of the underage bride or “consent” of the original wife—and the analog in contracting a sale of one’s daughter or sister into prostitution. Two, the familial collateral damage incurred on the part of any children locked into either of these systems should be obvious.

Stossel should be ashamed of himself.  Henkel should be investigated and prosecuted. And all FDLS men in bigamist marriages should be jailed for decades, lose all parental rights to their children, have all their marriages annulled retroactively, and suffer the stigma of being labeled sex offenders in public for life.

Oil-As-Food

Is there anyone who thinks that there is a genuine debate in Congress and between the Presidential candidates regarding offshore drilling and energy issues?

The US government, despite all protestations to the contrary, doesn't view oil as an addicition.

It's much worse.

It's seen as the economic equivalent of a food staple. Because man cannot live by bread alone.

Consequently:

There will never be any offshore drilling.

There will never be any new exploration.

There will never be any upgrading of refineries.

There will never be a Manhattan Project for alternative energy sources.

There will never be a comprehensive conversion to nuclear power.

There are too many interests on both sides of the political divide on energy issues that have a stake in keeping the status quo as is.

Specifically:

Big Oil and the doctrinaire environmentalists both benefit from ridiculous oil prices and restricted drilling; Big Oil because of profits, environmentalism because it allows them to maintain a semblance of doctrinary credibility.

Big Coal/Big Natural Gas and the environmenatlists both benefit from stalling progress on the nuclear front; Coal/Gas because holding the US energy grid hostage to an anachronistic technology maintains the industry's survival, environmetalism because reducing pollution takes a backseat to the tenet of a blanket ban on any nuclear/atomic technology.

(There is a difference between doctrinary credibility and consistency; the latter isn't a real concern. Al Gore's and Laurie David's respective carbon footprints are paradigms of this phenomenon.)

And while you get gassed, these people laugh all the way to the bank.

The energy industry will make sure that they use up every drop of oil, every last piece of coal, every last molecule of gas (and now include the farm industry and their subsidies too--every last ear of corn), until there is nothing left to profit from.

Congresspersons of both parties will continue to pocket subsidies from all industry lobbies, while they can pander to their various constituencies for votes.

And the Presidential candidates? Taking on Big Oil?

They're not over the barrel. They're in it.

Republi-Karma

I've avoided writing about this election, because as it stands now, the election is about Obama and his skin color. The issues are almost irrelevant; even the polls are almost irrelevant. The current political climate is the perfect storm the Democrats could have hoped for.

But when the McCain campaign utilized Paris Hilton as an analog to Obama's purported governmental IQ and didn't realize that her mother was one of their donors, I couldn't help myself.

I realized there is only one plotline:

Obama can say anything he wants to and it won't impact him negatively. McCain, on the other hand, can't say anything that will help him.

I predict the McCainiacs will pull the race card about 2 weeks before Election Day, utilizing a ploy similar to what the Helms campaign did to Harvey Gantt in 1990. I can't picture exactly what tactic they would use, only that it would have to be something a lot more nefarious than white hands or even Willie Horton.

It also will entail a much greater risk; even if the tactic succeeds in throwing the election to McCain, the Republican party will be painted as racist for a generation.

I don't particularly believe this administration or the Republicans in general have been as bad as they have been made out to be. But I do believe that there seems to be some form of Divine retribution in play here for the kind of political climate that is undoubtedly their creation, at least from the 1994 elections but probably as far back as the Lee Atwater era. Karl Rove was just following in their footsteps.

Payback's a bitch. Only the whole country is gonna pay for this.