How ironic that liberals and Democrats who have no difficulty believing that Islam has been hijacked by extremists have no notion that they have been hijacked by the far left.
A coalition of 1960s’ New Leftists and what used to be called the party’s McGovernite wing has taken over using a brilliant strategy of propaganda and dissimulation. Ah, for the good old days of Bill Clinton, a man who, for all his multiple faults, understood that he had to govern somewhere from within sight of the political center.
Why is it that while liberals/Democrats constantly claim the Republican Party has been taken over by its far right wing, many conservatives/Republicans constantly claim that Obama is a typical liberal/Democrat? Why don’t more critics of the current policies say instead that the Democratic Party has been taken over by its far left wing and no longer represents the worldview of mainstream Democratic voters and leaders of the past?
Instead, they play into the hands of the current government, helping it to mobilize support from Democrats and liberals by assuring them that the Obama administration is normative for liberals and Democrats rather than a radical deviation.
A question I ask my conservative and Republican friends is this: If Bill Clinton were still president you wouldn’t like it, but would you think that this is a disaster in which the country’s future was in jeopardy? If Hillary Clinton (or some other non-radical Democrat) were president, would you be so upset about her policies as you would be with what Obama is doing?
You might disagree but everyone I ask thinks a moment and says, “I see what you mean.”
Of course, since Obama is president and leader of the party, especially after he won election so handily, it is hard for Democratic politicians to disagree with him publicly. Yet what must they be saying in private? I think something like this: Am I going to allow this guy to destroy my career by making so many domestic mistakes that the economy will worsen even more and the people will vote against my reelection? Am I going to go along with a foreign policy that is producing a catastrophic decline in U.S. influence and victories for dangerous radical forces?
My estimate is that only about 25 percent of the Democrats in Congress are on the far left. The rest follow along because they are accepting the leadership of the president and of two truly terrible leaders in the House of Representatives and Senate, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
I am NOT arguing here about who the Republicans should nominate for president. I might be wrong, but every time I see Mitt Romney I imagine what a nice concession speech he would make after losing. But I am arguing about the need to unite all who can be united to understand the current ideological and policy mess in America.
Here are some questions that should be asked:
–Why should real traditional liberals and Democrats accept an economic policy that so distorted Keynesian economics, which never proposed ruinously unlimited debts based on totally unproductive spending?
Do the politicians not get it? Are they totally ignorant of history? Or are they so caught up in their own immediate interests and power that they in reality do not care what is happening to ordinary people? Any honest politician has to admit that history, while it tells us of man’s great achievements, tells us far more about the mess man makes. And history clearly shows us what a terrible mess politicians make. This is why they need to have their power limited, to be held accountable and to be voted out without delay when it becomes clear that they are self-serving and no longer public servants.
Do the voting public not get it? I would be deeply concerned if the country where I live had so many politicians that are lawyers. They are especially adept at pulling the wool over the eyes of naive voters. I believe the mess in the USA is in no small measure because of the actions (or inaction) of the people chosen to be their leaders. These people did not suddenly change the day they were elected from being honest, responsible, humble, compassionate, wise, principled and hard working candidates. What they are now, they were before they were elected. The voters should have looked carefully at their lives and listened carefully to their words before voting for them. The voters should have been ruthlessly critical of what the political establishment and media were selling to them. And at the end of the day, no one, neither President Obama nor the Democrats nor the Republicans can come out unscathed from a close critical scrutiny. All one can hope for is that the American public will at least get rid of their worst representatives or else accept the unpleasant consequences.
“Do the politicians not get it? Are they totally ignorant of history?”
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee has asked to see the flag that Neil Armstrong planted on Mars, and ranted about North and South Vietnam living in peace side by side today.
“Do the voting public not get it?”
I am told that vampires cannot enter your house unless you invite them in. Vampires live forever so they must not be starving.
Sheila Jackson Lee earned a B.A. in political science from Yale University in 1972, followed by a J.D. from the University of Virginia Law School in 1975.
AND I want to make sure you understand I agree 100% with your assessment of her Herculean mental abilities.
After all I would like to have a Martian flag myself, BUT if you ever had any question about what affirmative action has done to the credibility of our colleges and universities and Barrack Obama wasn’t enough proof, this woman is the ultimate paradigm
Great essay, but I take exception to the labels of “far right” and “far left.” We all know what the far left is, but what is the far right? If it’s characterized by being dictatorial and racist, isn’t that the same as the far left???
To me, if you are on the “right” you believe in freedom, individual liberty and personal responsibility. If that is extremism, then yes, let’s have more please! Politics is not pendular, with the center somehow being the holy grail of an ideal position. For lack of a better labeling system, the further to the left you go, the more totalitarian and tyrannical (even if it’s nanny state “for-our-own-good” reasoning by our so-called betters). The further to the right, the more you believe in the American republican ideal. The center merely represents a compromise of that ideal. And since as stated in the essay (and I agree) that the Democrat party has been hijacked, the center has been lurched ever leftward since at least 1972.
This is why, IMHO, we have the phenomenon of RINO’s and that politics is the way it is. Essentially, we have two sides of the same coin – one that wants to drive us over a cliff in a Maserati and the other in a Model A Ford. Same destination, different speed.
Time we all re-think this false premise of left-right and see things as “Liberty vs. Tyranny” (hint-hint).
Right now, a JFK Democrat is considered to be “far-Right.”
“We all know what the far left is, but what is the far right? If it’s characterized by being dictatorial and racist, isn’t that the same as the far left???”
People, since the Hitler lie, say fascism (corporate statism) is far right. It’s not. That’s just another flavor of totalitarianism which is all leftist.
True right-wing fanatics are anarchists (even though stupid leftists THINK they are leftists) – as in NO government (think mad max). In our beginning, we pretty much lived an anarchist life – every man for himself.
Mostly correct on the left, but don’t give our right too much credit. There’s no such thing as a direction that can’t be taken too far. Our democratic Republican ideals are not of the far right. Unlimited liberty and freedom is inevitably the law of the jungle. Democracy and a viable society require sharing and a respect for a real, needed authority.
Perhaps the balance required is one between the selfishness of the few and of the many?
Good point. Remember the origin of left and right is the seating arrangement of the French Assembly following the revolution. Those of a more moderate persuasion were seated to the right. But, of course, all of them sat in a “revolutionary” legislature. Another point of confusion when translating a European term – left and right – to the U.S. is that in Europe, traditionally, a conservative, or rightest if you will, was someone who believed in God, the monarchy, and the national cultural and historical ethos. That’s not really relevant to a discussion of the political spectrum in the U.S. Yes, National Socialism, or fascism, and the various flavors of international socialism are two sides of the same street. Maybe we should just call each other Big Statists and Little Statists. Anyway, labels can get confusing.
But if Obama is a far leftist – why are the leftists I know disappointed in him? His health plan was more conservative than that of Hilary Clinton or John
Edwards. His economic stimulus plan was considered by many leftists to be too small to be effective. Environmnetal activists feel that he hasnt done enough
to respond to what they see as the very real threat of global climate change.
If Prof Rubin or any of the readers can explain (since I dont live in America)
I would like to know.
I refer you to my rant above. Despite what you read in the make-belive-media, this nation is by and large conservative. The kook progressives are merely louder than everyone else, and the media only amplifies their ravings. The lefties are ticked off because Obama has not destroyed the country fast enough for their liking. Oh, the damage has been swift and far reaching – faster and farther than anyone feared (at least those who had their eyes closed). But they wanted single payer immediately. They wanted us out of Iraq immediately. They wanted Gitmo shut immediately. Etc., etc., etc.
Rush Limbaugh is right about this. He has noted many times how he doesn’t understand how the left could be so angry (and impatient) about a man who has taken this country on the fast track to what they have always dreamt about.
For anyone who doesn’t understand what the left means by single payer health insurance, they mean world class care for themselves and everyone who either doesn’t work or works at jobs that don’t pay enough to live on.
AND ALL PAID ENTIRELY by taxpayer funds squeezed out of the taxdollars paid by the rest of society.
These people, America’s so called “liberals”, are at their base profoundly greedy, lazy slugs who migrate to a free handout like a starving dog to a morsel of raw meat.
There are degrees of extremes too. For instance, the far leftists who want to outlaw private property all together are more extreme than the far leftists whose model for redistribution of wealth is huge taxes on the wealthy, yet that doesn’t make the latter mainstream liberals (in the original sense of the word), they are still within the far left range.
Obama is far leftist compared with the American mainstream, but there surely are leftists who are more radical than he is.
And then there’s also what J.J. Sefton says. If they’ll move too fast they will startle the American public whose majority isn’t on the far left. Obama is making huge moves, if he’ll be even more radical in implementing changes the Democrats will not stand a chance in the next elections and the process of transformation will come to a halt. Apparently some on the left don’t get it and believe Obama can bring the revolution now in one swift strike of his magic wand.
In a very perverse way, the election of Obama did the American people a favor; it woke us up to the reality of what, up until then, had been creeping statism. More people than ever are reading the works of Hayek, Sowell and even the Founders, and that is a good thing.
Sadly we are going to have to endure a protracted period of pain to get us back to some level of prosperity and growth, provided we elect real small “r” republicans and Conservatives. If not, we are screwed – high speed or slow.
Ann Coulter likes to say that every 12-16 years the country elects a Democrat President because we can’t remember how really bad they are.
The odd thing about Obama, is that while he’s definitely an ultra-liberal, he doesn’t fight for ultra-liberalism anywhere near as hard as a Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi would.
Obama’s policies end up more moderate, NOT because he is a moderate, but because he just doesn’t care to fight hard for leftism. (How many times did Senator Obama stick his neck out in the Senate, fighting for a risky and controversial position even though the odds were long?)
The far left is disappointed in Obama, NOT because of ideology, but because they are beginning to see that he’s a wimp–brains but no guts–who makes liberal noises but who has failed to follow through on anything. They were hoping for FDR 2.0 but what they got was a cross between Jimmy Carter 2.0 and Adlai Stevenson 2.0.
On health care, Obama is the type of leftist who will reason as follows:
“We need single-payer in this country just like what they have in Canada. But I know that’s controversial, and a lot of folks will fight me tooth and nail on that. Therefore I won’t bother with it, and will dust off Romney’s plan from MA instead.”
Prof. Rubin, Don’t forget to mention that Senator Lieberman said precisely this several years ago; that the extreme leftists are taking over the Democratic Party and he wanted them out. He subsequently lost his re-election bid as a Democrat had to run as an independent. I suspect the lesson learned from the Lieberman experience is that the extremists dominate the primary process, so it’s their way or the highway. And how many Dems have the popularity of Lieberman to allow them to win independently.
Here is one question I cannot answer and maybe you (or someone else)can. why did Hillary give up a Senator’s seat to become Obama’s Sec. State? A blind man could see that Obmessiah-charlatan was going to crash and burn and anybody on his wagon was going down with him. Hillary was supposed to be smart enough to avoid losers so what gives?
’cause hilly ‘n barry are two alinsky peas in a pod, and with huma now, sec’y hilly’s bigger than ever
because hilly ‘n barry are both alinsky disciples, and they’re both losers, that’s why
Hillary is not being dragged down by Obama.
Hillary is Secretary of State, dealing with foreign policy. So unlike Geithner, Summers, Romer and Obama himself, the failures of the Obama economic policies aren’t rubbing off on her.
Likewise Gates and Panetta aren’t suffering politically from the poor economy either.
I happen to believe that our foreign policy is now in complete shambles, and that Hillary Clinton has been the most ineffective Secretary of State in 35 years. She travels all over hell and gone, but name one thing she has done that didn’t either get usurped by Obama or end up in a complete disaster of her own making. Hilliary is no more qualified to be a Secretary of State than Obama is to be a President.
What Hillary did for fashion with her pant suits she is doing in foreign policy with her ineffectual bungling mis-steps: she is on the worst 10 list for both.
Why don’t more critics of the current policies say instead that the Democratic Party has been taken over by its far left wing and no longer represents the world view of mainstream Democratic voters and leaders of the past?
Glenn Beck said just that, but he’s crazy.
Why should real traditional liberals and Democrats support a suppression of free inquiry in schools and universities along with the substitution of indoctrination, an approach that totally contradicts everything liberals fought for during the last 150 years?
That reverses cause and effect. It’s not the traditional liberals and Democrats who support the suppression of free inquiry and free speech and their substitution with indoctrination, but the indoctrination system who produces the numbers of leftists to take over the Democratic party and vote for it. Then what you’re asking is why true liberals allowed and continue to allow it to happen? You might as well be asking why conservatives allowed and continue to allow it to happen in the schools and universities and media and Hollywood.
This isn’t a new phenomenon as you sometimes make it appear. It’s a process that’s been going on for decades. Being a process it was gradual, so in the 1970s things might have been better than in the 1980s, and in the 1990s things might have been better than in the 2010s. I think also for most people the more on the left they are the later in the process it will touch them personally, so the later they would wake up to it. The more on the left you are the more you’re likely to believe it’s there for a good cause, it’s there only to protect the little guy from the bad guys – you know, to stop the racists, sexists, homophobes and the like from spreading their evil. It’s only when you see for yourself injustice and lies and can’t talk about them without losing your reputation, friends and possibly your job that you understand that this is fundamentally wrong.
If liberals and dems had any brains they would not have nominated Obama for President. I am convinced that they are all brain dead!! Why just blame them for this fiasco,it was US citizens who elected him as President. They just could not see the leftist agenda and past record of this president even though there were enough people from the other side who were exposing this President’s past but the public just did not believe them fell for lies of our “esteemed” MSM!!
Well, one thing I agree with is we should support anyone with the guts, like President Truman, to propose a national health care system more or less like Canada’s. Sometimes less government is good, but in this case more government would make everyone’s lives better. How many people do you know who would move to another job or start their own business, if they weren’t afraid of losing their health insurance?
Why aren’t mainstream and traditional conservatives, so concerned about the effect of the government on everyday people’s lives, not incensed at both parties for allowing the last few decades of economic growth to benefit only the top 10%?
Because it has benefited a lot more than the top 10%? The very wealthy have certainly benefited more than the rest, but that’s not the same as saying that only the top 10% have gained from this growth.
If you want to figure out why a lot of people are not much better off, take a look at the role that illegal immigration plays in driving down wage rates for unskilled and semiskilled workers. Take a look at the destructive effects that divorce has had on the economic status of women and their children. Take a look at how encouraging every mother to be working full-time has driven down wages so dramatically that while the average household income hasn’t much changed in 40 years, the average worker’s income has fallen in half. What used to be households where the husband could support a family while the wife raised kids now requires both to work full-time. It is no surprise divorce has increased.
If politicians had ever worked to level the playing field between business-provided medical insurance (fully deductible to the business) and self-provided medical insurance (deductible to the extent it exceeds x-percent — currently 7.5%, moved to 10% by ObamaCare provisions — of the individual’s adjusted gross income), then people could have logically purchased their own insurance and changed jobs at will.
If politicians had eschewed the vast resources for campaign contributions from the plaintiff’s attorneys, then they might have reined in malpractice lawsuits and eliminated doctors’ high-premium malpractice insurance and the need for doctors to perform unnecessary tests and procedures, just to protect themselves from malpractice claims. In this way they could have brought down medical costs AND the cost of medical insurance.
ObamaCare is purposely designed to eventually bring about single-payor medical care. And to paraphrase The Voice in Field of Dreams, “If you make it free, they will come.” Imagine shopping at a grocery store where taxpayers payed for your groceries, no matter what or how much you bought. It would be a completely different experience from the current “you buy it, you pay for it” experience, don’t you agree? Unless the government instituted rationing, of course, either by law or by obscenely-long waits for the good you wish to throw in your cart. And so will go health care.
I am not sure that these “old school” liberals and democrats exist.
When I talk with someone who is a democrat I usually have to listen to recycled marxist blathering, class warfare truisms, and soviet-style readings of history and politics.
The minority of subversives has gone A LONG WAY in indoctrinating the democrats in the last thirty years.
And from 2003 until now, I have participated in the debate on different forums and I have never read a comment written from the point of view of an “old school” democrat: if a “liberal” comments about something it is always in troll style, from ridiculously extreme points of view.
I think that WE are the only “old school” anything…
Others may disagree with me, but I believe Zell Miller is one example of what you are searching for. His book “A National Party No More” is available on Amazon. I think it hits the nail squarely on the head.
I just read a column written by a Democrat who often appears on Fox News. He had been confronted by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and told that whenever any Democrat appears on Fox News, that Democrat has the responsibility of parroting the current party line; if he will not, that Democrat is NOT a Democrat and should not let Fox News describe him as a “Democrat,” as he is undermining the Party. According to Chuckie, Fox News’ sole goal is to destroy the Democrat party, and that’s why it’s incumbent upon any true Democrat to toe the Democrat line when appearing there, in the camp of the enemy.
Does that explain why it often seems the Dems speak with one voice? To do otherwise is deemed traitorous.
We can look at the GOP war on RHINOs and also see their collective refusal over the debt limit incurring even Fox News wrath last night. Maybe its time for some to re-evaluate why Scott won in Mass. Whether Republicans like it or not, Indies control 2012, not the Tea Party.
It is a free country, so go ahead and support creationism, loop-holes for corporate America to avoid taxes overseas, tax cuts as THE cure-all, and more religion. That only shows Independents what? Rationality?
Mr. Rubin focuses on a better tactic appealing to liberal values we all have that have been highjacked by the Left in the Democratic Party. Indies can relate to that. Kudos Barry.
Well, I am one Centrist Liberal that decided to go Independent following the purge of DNCers starting back in 2002. Let’s call that the Democratic “grand Bargain” the DNC made to the Left.
Republicans often scoff at the notion of Internationalism going back to Wilson to suggest the idea and the subsequent “Democracy peace theory” as a plot to advance socialism. Irony is who was anti-war in 1940. I think however, a strong case can be made that neoInternationalism was born out of WW2 and part of US containment of communism. “Liberal Democracies” don’t fight each other and its economic system was expected to prevail the more the West secured its trade routes and exchanged its information. FDR and Truman, then JFK all pushed America’s LIBERAL CONSENSUS which included besides shared security, equality, third party verification, and human rights. Democrats demanded the right of Soviet Jews to immigrate. Kissinger however suggested US policy to Iraq leadership in 1975 was to see Israel look like Lebanon. Advance 25 years or so and conservatives hardly blinked when Bush effectively co-opted the “Liberal” idea and then implemented “pro-democracy” poorly in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Now ask yourself if JFK could get the Democratic nomination today. The ease with which the Democrats accused the Clintons of Racism and Neoliteism during the Democratic presidential primary a few years ago revealed the extent then that the Bush Era fractured the Democratic Party and allowed in the Left which had been effectively neutered up to and through the end of the Clinton administration. Obama would capitalize on this “breakout” later and encourage J-Street. He rehired Power and Malley and set out on a failed ME policy he only now seeks to correct.
Clinton was forced out of the Senate particularly because of the anticipated struggle over Healthcare reform. Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, Edwards, Richardson, Kerry, etc. had all back stabbed Hillary. Don’t forget the foul play by Obama, Dodd and Edwards regarding Michigan’s primary. Despite knowledge of Edward’s “problems”, the DNC kept quiet. We all know what media did though during and after the election of Obama. See Journolist scandal.
The Democratic primary cracked the Democratic Party which fought a bitter battle internally – Obama’s Change Mantra v Clinton’s Democratic Referendum narrative of liberal centrist change. The initial Obama Czars, advisers and officials sought to consolidate their perceived mandate while media kept quiet on the facts Mr. Rubin presents as well as the more serious misgivings within the Jewish community. Clinton supporters predicted this quite accurately.
So oddly, Mr. Rubin explains precisely my blogging behavior this last near decade. I rarely hail Republicans or any smell of social conservatism, but more importantly, I demand clear answers from “liberals” who believe they speak for liberal ideas or even the history and deeper inclination of the Democratic Party v the psuedo-Democratic Party written by Leftists. As for Hillary, she would have been a nightmare for Obama in the Senate and was offered a way out of a bad situation to what she likely foresaw happening. I suspect we won’t know what anchor she has provided US foreign policy, but there still exists real opportunities for the US and Obama. He appeared to have effectively diluted whatever consolidation Clinton sought in power over at State, but might need her endorsement at the election time. Expect more of her hand as Obama pivots for 2012.
I suggest those center/left Liberals keep the pressure on. Irony would be the purge of Liberal Hawks and Liberal Democratic peace theory advocates from the Democratic Party and the Paul Wing rising on the Right.
“Why aren’t mainstream and traditional conservatives, so concerned about the effect of the government on everyday people’s lives, not incensed at both parties for allowing the last few decades of economic growth to benefit only the top 10%?”
Did it ever occur to you that it is the “Top 10%” that is promoting this liberal agenda. You might think that GE, wind and solar companies are GREEN but they are really promoting themselves. The liberal politicians encouraged the banks to lend money to people who could never pay it back and then bailed out the banks. Federal Government jobs and salaries skyrocketed at the expense of productive workers. The regulations that these workers implement smother our industry.
No wonder the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class dwindles.
Gents, wake up it is 21st century! Cold war is over and what you thought your grand daddy’s left and right are no more. America you’d better get your act together or you’ll be run over by, yes, Chinaaaaaaaaaaa!!! While you are being sucked dried in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan, China has been growing at 12 percent annually. Mind you that is 10 percent growth for billion and a half people! Now, do you think they care what Hayek or Keynes thought about this and that. For gods sake they care less about Marxism. Fighting less centuries’ wars is a loosing proposition. America should recollect herself, avoid fighting other’s wars, invest in infrastructure, invest in science and technology. Those all require collective effort that means politics should focus solely on America herself. Free markets is just a myth.
Free markets are the only kind of markets that can provide an economic basis for individual freedom. If what you say is true, then individual freedom is also just a myth. Then what do we have? Maybe that is why we are finally fighting this monster.
Mstr, your remarks seem confusing. The latter years of the 30′s is replete with lessons. And those that fail to learn them repeat the mistakes. There was no risk then about the proliferation of WMD, but had Hitler acquired nuclear weapons……it would be a different world. The Cold War was a binary political and economic division and we are witnessing a new duality (World v terror ideology) superimposed on top of a multi-polar world. These two dynamics effect each other and are now pushing certain “partners” towards a more “unified” position, something lacking prior to WW2.
As for China, what they fear most today besides US advanced weapons they haven’t stolen the designs for yet, is Democracy. Their carrot to US business is designed to keep away retaliatory measures that would sink Turkey’s bid to the EU, if China was Turkey. Their loans get good interest. What distinguishes them from our economic system is that they still seek a modern fighter engine while we have proven manufacturing capacity that is working on the next generation. Our entrepreneurs are preparing to launch the second largest rocket ever and lift payloads into orbit with reusable air craft. America doesn’t need 5 million engineers…lol. We just need several thousand of the best. I’m sure there are many Chinese Americans on that list.
There were 192,000 “incidents” of unrest of fifty people or more last year in China, if my memory is correct. And that’s greatly under-reported. If you Google, you will see a recent article from WSJ about why in a rational analysis, China is in a precarious position with several large obstacles in its way. The comparison of China to the combined strength of the Western Alliance which you dismiss is quite slanted. And Chinese neighbors such as India have close relationships with the US and Russia.
It is very important we invest in ourselves and focus on education, renewing our capacity to manufacture the best products(including military grails) and crack the energy barrier.
Or at least deal with reality. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a4f599cd0-471c-45b2-9b00-3b087b6423d5&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
The mere word neorealism suggests “realism” had to be abridged for lack of the former’s realism. Fighting China is last century’s war. No one wants fallout and chaos. Those that encircle the China Sea and the most populous country today will react to Chinese Hegemony. Those that oppose liberty cannot contain communication technology or human desire. They cannot act with impunity and maintain the market share they need for growth. Coercive kin-related cooperation has its limits and Dragons are more a myth than free markets. China has accepted the international narrative of human rights and its growth rate depends on global fraternity and cooperation as the Chinese cannot afford to buy all what they sell.
The odd thing about the Left in America is that much of their political base and thinking is centered around being anti-racist and yet they partner themselves with arguably the closest thing to a Nazi analogue other than the Nazi Party itself which is Islam.
I can only assume that the reason Jews on the Left side with the Democratic Party is because they feel Israel is the source of anti-Semitism outside of Israel. It would be interesting to ask the opinion of the few thousand Jews who were given suitcases and ushered out of Egypt after the 1967 War when it comes to such things. Egyptians like to claim they don’t like Zionists rather than Jews but how were their own citizens Zionists?
Why in the world women, blacks and gays who get short shrift within Arabic Islam partner themselves with a Left so blithe to the precepts of Islam is another interesting question.
You also have consistent and high profile anti-white hate speech from America’s black intelligentsia who are firmly on the Left which you can see every single day on the Washington Post’s The Root, the Huffington Post and as guests on MSNBC not to mention with tenure at our universities.
America had the guts to get rid of Ward Churchill but pulls up short on these others who are in complete agreement with Churchill when it comes to America. Why leave America when you can just change it into something you like but that future is already here in the way of identity advocacy rather than any thought of the greater good and it is only a matter of time before they turn on each other.
By that time the wholesale transfer of a failed Third World will be too far advanced to turn back from.
One answer to Barry Rubin’s pointed questions boils down to the sordid fact that Jeremiah Wright’s hate-filled “God Damn America” is a mindset more widespread and infectious in this country of ours than we could ever have imagined.
Except in those terminally riddled with hatred, “God Damn America” also covers up the fear to stand up and fight for our country in a dangerous world. Democrats now are mostly made up of those filled with hate, or overcome by fear.
If one really wants to understand the current regime in Washington, he/she should follow the money trail. The online Washington Examiner ran a series of op-eds this year that were collected under “Who Funds the Democratic Party”. The far left is extremely rich. It’s ironic that people who made fortunes from capitalism spend so much on destroying the only country on earth where free markets once thrived.
0bama is a worthless, scumbag, POS who was elected by a bunch of worthless, scum bag pieces of poooooooooo.
The problemmo is, there is more ‘poo-brains’ and ‘pea er pee brains’ than SANE brains in this country.
Thank you public education and public sector UNION scum!
The dumbing down of America is our greatest tragedy. We wouldn’t be ‘here’ if it weren’t for the Marxist muthaF*ckas NOT teaching our children on EPIC scales.
I feel so alone because my retarded in-laws are all white leftists who think 0bama needs more time to right the EVIL BUSH wrongs.
*beats head against keyboard in sheer frustration and agony*
Delia, they are this way because Liberals feel, but don’t critically analyze anything. That makes it very easy to manipulate them, and people who “feel” rather than analyze are far more prone to radicalization and frothing-at-the-mouth.
As a group, they are the true “Sheeple.”
I have begun to view the Democrat/Liberal ruck as akin to the followers of the snake king in one of the Conan movies. Where the king nods at one of his followers, and she simply steps right off a cliff on demand. DO what the leader says, he knows best.
The true problem is, they have come to view *feeling* poignantly about a topic is the same as *thinking* about it.
You should take a look at the Myers Briggs system, if you haven’t already. It clearly divides people into those who primarily “think in rational terms” and those who are primarily driven by their “feelings”. Most woman and a lot of men fall into the “feeling” catagories. Up until the last forty years only rational thinkers could progress to the college level because with some few exceptions the intellectual rigor of college( forty years ago not any longer) made it very difficult for none rational based thinkers to graduate from college or university. With the amazing dumbing down of colleges and universities starting right after the Vietnam War strike and college riots of the 1970-1973 period, the left was able to begin changing the curriculum from hard core subjects(read difficult and reason based) into feel good emotive indoctrination courses. These courses were taught by ideologues of the Left and New Left and naturally rewarded the “feeling” students who could parrot back the dogma of Communism with the highest grades. Thus we have clowns like Sheila Jackson Lee and Barack Obama riding “english” majors which are really Marxism majors into our fancy Ivy League graduate schools with great grades. Afterall they are normally judged not only on the African American Affirmative Action grade curve but also on the “is he or she one of us and should they be promoted forward for the “cause”. Hell yes.
“0bama is a worthless, scumbag, POS who was elected by a bunch of worthless, scum bag pieces of poooooooooo.”
That might be one reason why you feel so alone.
Mr. May, I must admit, many of your observations appear correct.
“Why in the world women, blacks and gays who get short shrift within Arabic Islam partner themselves with a Left so blithe to the precepts of Islam is another interesting question.”
Indeed
Thx U 4 prying Ur lips away from M. Totten’s buttox long enuf 2 make Ur comment. In Fr. we hav a saying: there is nothing lik a nutsax without the remora to mak ease of movement. Cherchez la idiot! C U on les barricades.
“Thx U 4 prying Ur lips away from M. Totten’s buttox long enuf 2 make Ur comment. In Fr. we hav a saying: there is nothing lik a nutsax without the remora to mak ease of movement. Cherchez la idiot! C U on les barricades.”
They have a lot of sayings in France, but then don’t get me started. Thank you for your intelligent comments and class.
You pull an interest crew here Mr. Rubin.
“Do Democrats and liberals, who have had such a role in shaping American history since around 1900, really want to adopt the view that America is evil, its history shameful, and that it deserves to decline?”
Here’s a data point for you:
In 2004, the Democrats held their national convention in Boston (and nominated Kerry for President).
During the convention, the Boston Globe newspaper conducted a survey of the views of the delegates, via a multiple-choice questionnaire.
One question was: “What was the cause of the 9-11 terrorist attack?”
A plurality (might even have been a slim majority) of delegates selected the answer “Past U.S. wrongdoing.” Only a very tiny percentage selected the answer “Islamic extremism.”
Any questions?
Obama didn’t hijack the Dem Party.
The takeover by the New Left first occurred way back in 1970, when for the first time, those former college radicals got lots of slots on the Democratic National Committee. At the time, they rammed through a resolution calling for “reparations” to North Vietnam.
Obama is from the same school of thought as George McGovern. And he was nominated by this Democratic Party in 1972–39 years ago. And the same school of thought as Michael Dukakis, who was nominated in 1992–19 years ago.
The Dem Party has been the party of New Left antiwar protest and hippie-dippy social values since I was in college. And I was in college when Nixon was President.
Now there was a great Republican. Tricky Dick. Here is what his Secretary of State said. Quite different than Hillary Clinton:
“Kissinger: I understand what you are saying. When I say we are willing to improve relations with Iraq, we can live without it. But it is our policy to move toward better relations. I think, when we look at history, that when Israel was created in 1948, I don’t think anyone understood it. It originated in American domestic politics. It was far away and little understood. So it was not an American design to get a bastion of imperialism in the area. It was much less complicated. And I would say that until 1973, the Jewish community had enormous influence. It is only in the last two years, as a result of the policy we are pursuing, that it has changed.
We don’t need Israel for influence in the Arab world. On the contrary, Israel does us more harm than good in the Arab world. You yourself said your objection to us is Israel. Except maybe that we are capitalists. We can’t negotiate about the existence of Israel, but we can reduce its size to historical proportions. I don’t agree that Israel is a permanent threat. How can a nation of three million be a permanent threat? They have a technical advantage now. But it is inconceivable that peoples with wealth and skill and the tradition of the Arabs won’t develop the capacity that is needed. So I think in ten to fifteen years, Israel will be like Lebanon—struggling for existence, with no influence in the Arab world.
You mentioned new weapons. But they will not be delivered in the foreseeable future. All we agreed to is to study it, and we agreed to no deliveries out of current stocks. So many of these things won’t be produced until 1980, and we have not agreed to deliver them then.
Our policy is to move our policy towards peace and to improve relations with the Arab world. Iraq is not a negotiator, but I think the policy of Egypt and Syria to improve relations with us helps us to bring pressure for a settlement.
The Israelis like you better than [Egyptian president Anwar] Sadat because they like to put it in terms of a U.S.-Soviet problem. We don’t want you to have unfriendly relations with the Soviet Union; we don’t interfere in your relations with the Soviet Union. But basically, the Israelis prefer radical Arabs.
If the issue is the existence of Israel, we can’t cooperate. But if the issue is more normal borders, we can cooperate..
We have moved toward normalization with others–except Libya. South Yemen, we will move towards.” Kissinger 1975 http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/kissinger_iraq_israel_1975.htm
Lieberman was Obama’s mentor and to suggest Joe elevated Obama based on his anti-war attitude and the idea we were attacked on 9/11 is worse than revisionist speculation. Again, it was Eisenhower that made the West retreat from the Suez. But don’t let facts disturb your theories…..
Like Reagan preventing a joint Indian/Israeli strike on Pakistan’s research reactor.
attacked because of our transgressions that is….
Nice article. It really talks sense through questioning. If I were a liberal I would be totally converted.
However, I believe the air is different throughout the world. I think liberals are uniting on all fronts for a New World Order. Predicated on humanism, predicated on evolutionary belief. I know that older generations typically say that the younger generation is worse, and I will not detour from that – this generation coming up is very wicked.
So you are against the theory of evolution? So are the Muslim extremists. Don’t worry, the hand of God will save us all.
Nice, guilt by association. I suppose I should stop believing in a one true God as well?
In any case, I’ve done my homework, and as far as I observe I come to the conclusion that the rampant godlessness in society is fueled in large part by evolutionary belief: a construct that inherently veils men’s own wickedness as if it is simply nature. A belief that undermines the foundation of Christianity, which contributed to the strongest aspects of America’s Constitution. A belief that is the foundational creed to ALL communists, earth worshippers, socialists, humanists, atheists, etc. Guilty by association, indeed. Some say that the greatest deception the devil can pull off is making people believe he doesn’t exist.
Evolution is a fairy tale, but sophisticatedly dressed up for our age. Frogs into princes. Is that more arbitrary than a God who Is and Judges?
One might spend some time understanding evolution before judging it. The same science that makes it possible for you to post comments verifies the evidence of evolution. The same science that builds B-1 bombers and nuclear power plants. Frogs into Princes is not a tenet of Darwin’s. Leaving nursery rhymes behind, show a single measurable fact that God directs evolution. Did he pull on the giraffe’s neck and cut off the feet of the whales? Did he design our eyes that fail as we age? The fact that Intelligent Design can’t even conceive an experiment that could measure the immaterial, is why rational people rejected such nonsense in science class.
And I don’t suppose irrationality is at the heart of the Jihadist. Naw…
If the amount of time one puts into study of a subject is your criteria for mastery then it is very probably that I have more expertise in the field of Evolutionary BELIEFS than you. The technology that is used in conjunction with assumptive science is not the problem. The problem is the assumptive science.
However, I am aware that it is a fools errand to argue any further. I understand why naturalists believe that they are consistent in the conclusions they come to. The fact that consistency, nevertheless, is not necessarily logically conclusive proof of their worldview continues to elude them. So long as a viable alternative exists then there is reasonable doubt… and even still, without that, there is no proof of upward Evolution because it doesn’t happen (You see, I have to include that qualifier ‘upward’, because I already know how you would respond, it you were to.).
Biblical Creationists are also consistent with their interpretation of the evidence based on their world view, and are not deemed proven in their claims. Further, nor are they disproven by what can actually be tested and verified. Their science is good, but their assumptions are simply not accepted by the mainstream. The mainstream accepts the assumptions of atheists. That is what the Bible has predicted and it is the way of the world today.
I have never read the words of Satan, though I have certainly read the words of evil men. You seem to imply that evolution somehow negates the concept of morality, or that morality didn’t exist before Christians proclaimed Jesus.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110705211022.htm
Now if there are other forms of life in the universe, everything according to the NT ends on Judgement day. What happens to all the other life? What happens to this wondrous universe? Does other life go to Heaven too?
It is a bit bizarre to think literalistic interpretations of the Bible or the Koran are rational descriptions and explanations of life. Eve made from the rib of Adam?
If I remember correctly, there is not one word from the Divine in the Bible in regards to the need for clean drinking water or how to care for wounds. Begetting wasn’t even fully explained or how to grow better plants or animals. Plenty on what not to eat, but zip on the most elemental information needed for human survival.
I bring this up because “liberal” for me at least also implies rationality. Equality implies a mathematical formula. Our founders made no bar of religion. The Left is pathetic because it drifts from rationality into the very irrationality it sought to avoid. I would hardly reject that irrationality and become slave to another, no matter my personal religious beliefs.
The threat from Iran is that the regime isn’t rational. If it was, it would be more liberal……..
You keep being rational and holding out for life from other universes to come knocking.
Looking from outside the USA, I can confirm that many, many people wanted Obama because they fear the conservative slant on religion and their push to have their god shoved into the constitution. Obama offered a more secular alternative.
Unfortunately, it was a communistic, secular alternative. Now no-one seems to be sure whether he is encouraging a theocracy because he cannot tell the difference between christians and muslims (well-indoctrinated as a child), or whether he is convinced that they will help bring about a more socialist-friendly environment (as they did for Hitler back ten).
The answer is either a) end of the only two party political system, or b) get the republicans to go easy on the “under God” bit. Currently 20% of voters are atheist – that’s a lot more than the muslims!
Barry Rubin makes salient points about the Democratic Party. I am finding more and more Tea Party people to, surprisingly, be centrists, that is, not willing to give up their entitlements and willing to look to government for many things that are less than what a Free Market and Free Trade advocate would propose. I am not so sure that the Tea Party wants as Limited Government as rhetoric makes it appear and what Liberal Media exaggerates it to be.
Hi Bob.
I don’t think the Tea Party is necessarily becoming more centrist. I do think more and more non-ideological voters are latching on to the Tea Party, however, because they see it as the only hope of steering this country’s economy from the iceberg those in both parties have been driving it towards.
Hey, Barry, Hillary Clinton is Barack Obama just older,more facial hair,and in a pants suit but the same leftwing Alinskyite working for Soros and the destruction of America. And okay you are correct she likes muslim girls more than Obama. But basically they are two peas in the same communist pod.
Other than his skin color how is Obama any different than Hitler in his early days?
Thankfully for us and the future of freedom, Hitler was a much better speaker. Obama is a boring clown once you notice the telepromter is providing all of the flow of the presentation.
We are forgetting our own Israeli history here Dr. Rubin in which a small but very committed radical group of Left wing Israeli Socialists and Communists established our country and imposed an almost Bolshevick social and economic order on Israel that lasted for decades and even now afflicts our economic and to a lesser extent, our social system.
This is the playbook of the radical Left, whether Jewish, Russian, or American Democrat Party. A small, vocal, committed, well organized, and very determined group of Leftist radicals infiltrate and take over the reins of power, and then proceed to drag everybody else along with them, or else! Worse, like in Israel, it will take tremendous effort and sacrifice for the more moderate members to retake the party’s power and cause tremendous damage in order to do so. And just to make things even worse for the Democrat Party, almost all of the most dangerous Leftist radicals there are Jewish and from my own personal experience, committed Jewish Leftists are the most harmful of all.
Just look at how difficult and trying it has been for Jewish moderates in Israel to dismantle even part of the socialist nightmare we lived under since the Twenties!
Regards,
“And just to make things even worse for the Democrat Party, almost all of the most dangerous Leftist radicals there are Jewish and from my own personal experience, committed Jewish Leftists are the most harmful of all.”
This is an extremely dangerous situation for the comity of all Americans and especially the American Jewish Community.
Without those Israeli founders and Truman’s support, Israel would exist only on paper. The religious Right in Israel is hardly an alternative to a more secular and Liberal Democracy. Perhaps you confuse Liberal with Leftist. The most ardent Leftist Jews embrace Post-Zionism.
I rather doubt the communists would support a religious class that doesn’t want to “work” for a living.
Where was a “greater Israel” mentioned in the founder’s declarations?
I’m waiting to be characterized as anti-Israel….lol. That would be a mistake. Support however, doesn’t mean the suspension of rationality. And of course, Bill Clinton has high marks in Israel and that’s not just in comparison with Obama.
Dear Maxtrue,
First and foremost, you entirely missed the point I was making. I was simply pointing out that the radical Left has always succeeded in taking over movements by it’s ruthlessness, it’s lack of any morality, it’s determination, and mainly by it’s willingness to destroy anyone, it’s opponents as well as any of it’s faint hearted supporters. I could list of course, Castro and Che Guevara, Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin, or any of the pre State Jewish founders of Israel who even used the murder of Hayyim Arlosoroff to smear the non Leftist movements.
Because you mention Truman and the rather shallow and weak American support for Israeli statehood in 1948, I will assume you know almost nothing regarding pre State Israel, it’s founders, and even the Jewish State’s foundations. The Jews who came to Israel long before there was a state here were largely Left wing radicals escaping from Czarist oppression. The ideas and movements that they established in pre Revolutionary Russia were certainly adopted by the later Bolsheviks but the Jews who supported these movements were rejected out of hand. In point of fact, the former Soviet Union and it’s Eastern bloc allies ware the greatest supporters of Israel in it’s formative years due to the simple fact that most of Israel’s leaders were dyed in the wool hard line Soviet Reds whom Stalin counted on to spread the Communist ideology to the Middle East and beyond. The USSR and it’s allies were also instrumental in providing the arms and diplomatic support that made Israeli independence even possible. The only American support that nascent Israel got was from American Jews while the American government did everything it could to prevent arms, ammunition, and even military trainers from reaching Israeli shores. So please don’t insult my country Israel with these silly claims that without Truman, Israel would not have succeeded in declaring independence and fighting successfully to gain that freedom and sovereignty.
But back to my point, the utter ruthlessness of that small group of well organized hardline Jewish Communists did set up the foundations of the State of Israel, and it was due to their oppressive, backward and ideologicall rigid Soviet Marxism, as well as often violent suppression of the opposition right wing or nationalist parties, and their manipulation of the small religious parties and the voters by making the Labor Party membership card and little Red Book mandatory, that Israel took so long to develop into an effective and democratic state. Indeed, we are still fighting tooth and nail to prevent the Israeli Left from destroying the Jewish People in Israel.
No Maxtrue, I do not think that you are anti Israel, I just think that you have been betrayed by your rather impressive ignorance about Israeli history, Israeli leaders, and Israeli reality and that you have come to conclusions that are at best mistaken and at worst delusional.
Ken – well, that was an interesting post.
If Israel’s founders were a “small group of well organized hardline Jewish Communists”, why did they name a village and a forest, and perhaps other sites, in honor of Truman?
Did they name any sites or organizations in honor of Stalin or Mao? If not, why not?
I didn’t know that Israel’s founders “[manipulated]…the voters by making the Labor Party membership card and little Red Book mandatory”. So only Labor Party members were allowed to vote? And Israel was founded in 1948, but Mao’s Little Red Book was first published in 1964. How, exactly, did that work? Something to do with the space-time continuum?
Thanks Dikehopper, but Ken conveniently leaves out what the extreme right can do and has done over the decades, or were Hitler and Stalin really more than fascists? No Truman had nothing to do with Israel. Instead, Jews received millions for communist Americans in support of their country and today AIPAC is really a communist front group for the State of Israel..
And if the Left in Israel can all be generalized as commies, then the force that opposes them must be freedom loving Liberal Democrats. Oh yes, I get that now.
I can’t believe I was so blind….
Max – Ken and I are on what I often call the “same side”. That is, we are both strong supporters of Israel. But there are some, a very few, on my “same side” who are nothing but clowns. Ken is one of them.
I did a quick and dirty search to find who else besides Ken thought that Israel was founded by communists. The only group or organization I found who agreed with Ken was Stormfront, a prominent Jew-bashing organization. You just can’t get any whackier than that.
Got it Dikehopper….I was being sarcastic in my last remark…
The Israel Labor party had it’s own Little Red Book during the 50′s which also included the membership of the person holding it. This book gave that person the right to extra rations, yes rationing was carried out during that period, as well as the right to better housing and bigger clothing allowances. An Israeli who did not have this Red Book was usually stuck in a transit camp with poor rations, and de facto had no right to work since the Labor Party controlled Histadrut gave jobs to Labor members and excluded the others or relegated them to the worst and most demeaning housing and employment.
Again, I must point out that both you Maxtrue and Dikehopper are massively ignorant of pre State Israeli history as well as the early history of modern Israel.
You both might want to actually read about both of these periods before you write such badly misinformed nonsense or almost delusional tripe.
It would help if you both had even the slightest idea what you are talking about regarding Israel because your ignorance makes you both look foolish.
“If Israel’s founders were a “small group of well organized hardline Jewish Communists”, why did they name a village and a forest, and perhaps other sites, in honor of Truman? ”
Well, Ben-Gurion’s Mapai certainly was not Communist – it was left-wing Socialist. But it was not Truman’s help that proved decisive in 1948 – it was Stalin who permitted Czechoslovakia to sell us weapons.
“Did they name any sites or organizations in honor of Stalin or Mao?”
No. But Kibbutz Movement split in 1951 mainly due to Stalinism – and twin “Ichud” and “Meuchad” kibbutzim that exist nowadays are serving as a reminder of those days when Stalin was worshipped by significant portion of Israeli Left.
It’s ridiculous to say that Israel was founded by communists. The majority of Israel’s founders and its population back then were in their worlview socialist democrats who opposed communism. There was (and still is) a small communist party in Israel who Ben Gurion swore to never include in a government coalition, just as he swore to never sit with Mahal (the right wing party). He considered both the right and the communists undesirable. Both were also shunned in academic and intellectual circles.
It’s true the Labor party (it was called Mapay back then) was corrupt politically and the entire atmosphere was not friendly to the right, but to describe it as anything akin to Bolshevism is a hyperbole. Nonbody knows who killed Arlozorov and there were no other politicians murdered in Israel until the assassination of Rabin by a right wing loony in the 90s, so I’d hardly say the Labor party is the prime suspect for that murder or else they’d assassinated others too. The right wing might have been rejected in academy and the MSM, but they had free speech. They could publish newspapers, books, hold rallies, speeches, election campaigns, distribute leaflets and so on. Nobody incarcerated or killed them. That’s why they could have been elected in 1977. Ah, yes, there were free elections too, another minor difference from Bolshevism.
It’s also ridiculous to say that Israel ows its existence to Truman or the US. Israel ows its existence mostly to one factor and that is Israel itself. By the time the UN got to vote on partition there was already a de-facto Jewish state here. It was already built, the institutions were all in place, and it just needed the British to leave to become independent. It also needed recognition in its statehood which is what it got from the UN. Both the US and the USSR as well as most of Europe and Latin America voted for. Only Muslim states (who were a small minority in the UN back then, unlike today that Muslim states make the largest bloc), their ally India and one or two other countries voted against. So the American political support, i.e. voting yes in the UN in spite of the opposition from the State Department, which probably influenced other countries too, was important, but it’s not the reason Israel exists.
The Americans gave Israel no material help. They joined the arms embargo on the Middle East in 1948 knowing full well the Arabs were armed by the Brits. The Brits armed and trained and also commanded the Arab Legion, Jordan’s army (they had great interests in the Middle East and wanted to retain air bases and some military presence in the newly founded Arab states, so the Arab-Israeli war was quite convenient for them. See, for instance, this article from 1956. And “In Context” next to it: “In 1948 a treaty of alliance allowed Britain to retain air bases and a small force in Jordan. In return, Britain continued to train and subsidise the Arab Legion which began as a security force and became the nucleus of the army”). When the Arabs attacked Israel the British commanders of the Arab Legion officially left as to not be directly involved in the war, which would cause them international embarrassment, but unofficially the British commanders returned. So the arms embargo was to hurt mostly Israel. And the US joined it. So to say Israel ows its existence to the US is funny. In spite of the revisionist history of today, back then most thought Israel would perish. The press back then wasn’t optimistic about Israel’s ability to survive the war. To put it bluntly, the powers left Israel to die at the Arab hands, and the British secretly, but actively, supported it.
The only country that broke the embargo and sold weapons to Israel was Czechoslovakia, who was indeed a communist state and might have had the blessing of the Soviets, but might also have had other motives (Czechoslovakia was the country sacrificed by the Brits and French to appease Hitler – remember? The Jews were Hitler’s victims too and the Brits were to sacrifice Israel to their ineterests in the Arab world, so there was a certain common bond). It’s true the USSR was mostly pro-Zionist in the beginning (though Trotsky and other communist Jews were anti-Zionist) because being socialists Israel’s founders were supposedly ideologically closer to the USSR than to capitalism, and because the Brits supported the other side (at the time the Brits were the number one enemy of the USSR in the Western bloc), but that was short lived. But Considering that the USSR also voted yes in the UN, and that communist Czechoslovakia sold weapons to Israel, Israel probably owed more to the USSR at that point.
The US didn’t sell any weapons to Israel in its first decade of existence. Israel’s main ally until the late 60s was France (since Britain, France’s rival, got the Arabs until the Nasserist revolution which threw British influence out of Egypt and brought the ultra-nationalist phase of Arab history, and Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal, which was crucial to both Britain and Israel and drew them temporarily together).
A more tangible relationship between the US and Israel started forging in the 60s, but only started to become serious in the 70s after the Israelis turned over to the US photocopies of Khrushchev’s secret speech in the Kremlin that exposed Stalin’s crimes. There were already rumors about it, but no one had the text of the actual speech, which Israel got from a Jewish defector from the USSR who managed to put his hands on it. The photocopies were hard proof which caused major damage to the Soviet image abroad and broke the leftist Stalin myth. Later on Israel produced many other invaluable intelligence and Soviet weapons (used by the Arabs) to the Americans, including coveted items such as a fully working Mig and innovative radar system Israel air lifted from Egypt in a daring operation. So Israel became a valueable ally in the Cold War, which is the main reason for the so-called “special relationship” that evolved between the US and Israel (France had already abandoned Israel in the late 60s and soon after flipped sides to the Arabs, which the US is in the process of doing now).
Needless to say the Soviets and their allies in the West shifted to radical Israel-hatred, though the Soviets were already inciting the Arabs against the US using Israel back in the 50s before there was any meaningful alliance, they simply lied to them about it. Soviet propaganda described the US as the Evil Empire and Israel as an American power extention in the Middle East (rings a bell? Great Satan and Little Satan).
Many pro-Israel Americans believe the strong alliance as it is in the past 3-4 decades was as strong from the beginning. It’s inaccurate, but I don’t mind that because there’s a difference between the government and the people. The majority of Americans were always sympathetic to Israel, which naturally also influenced the American position toward it.
Re my comment above: “and the British secretly, but actively, supported it” – ‘it’ refers to Israel’s destruction, not to Israel. The Brits supported the Arabs.
Ken Besig, Israel
I want to thank you for your comments. I have learned a lot from your explanations of Israel’s development and while others seem to disagree with you, your explanations seem to fit more with the little I do know of the times before Israel achieved statehood.
Also I am too familar with the Communist Party USA’s long standing infiltration into the various elements of the US culture and Government to agree with your critics that these are just “socialist” endevors. For the survival of Israel and the United States it is important to be able to discern who are enemies foreign and DOMESTIC are and prepare to counter them aggressively. Again thanks for the historic background.
You write as if the religious right is the only alternative to the Labor. The religious right is a minority. Likud isn’t a religious party. It usually allies with the religious parties in forming a coalition because in the Israeli parliamentary systme you need a majority in the Knesset to form a government, so you need to include small parties in it. The small leftist parties will not join a Likud government, so they need the religious parties. Though religious parties have also joined Labor coalitions, and the Labor needs them for the same reason.
There are also ideological differences between the different religious parties. The largest Ultra-Ortodox party participated in the Labor coalition during the days of the Oslo accords (they abstained in the vote). Its spiritual leader decreed back in the 70s that relinquishing parts of the Holy Land is allowed if it saves lives because the sanctity of life is greater than the sanctitiy of the land. Today they oppose it because, like the majority of Israelis, they don’t believe we have a partner on the other side, to put it politely.
The formula is land-for-peace, not land for terror, rockets and misslies and giving the enemy a great strategic advantage in further assaults on Israel. The part about peace is now forgotten by the left. We’re supposed to simply withdraw and wait for the next attack, including rockets covering all of Israel’s Coastal Plain from the Judean Hills. The Coastal Plain is where the majority of the Israeli population resides, and also the center of Israel’s industry and commerce, most of its ports and its only international airport, its major transportation arteries, as well as other crucial strategic assets. Simultaneous daily rocket attacks from Gaza, Judea & Samaria and Lebanon (by Hizballah who is better armed than ever in spite of “international guarantees” to disarm it Israel got for withdrawing from south Lebanon) can cover all of Israel and cause enormous damage and paralysis, which will surely “soften the target” for a possible conventional military attack to follow. This short video explains the strategic issues better than I can. Our “peace partners” in the Arab world still openly talk (in Arabic) about destroying Israel and even exterminating the Jews, they still educate their children on jihad against Israel (in any borders) and extreme anti-Israel and also antisemitic propaganda, and they also act accordingly. And the radical Islamic forces are getting stronger globally. To demand of Israel to relinquish all these strategic assets to its enemies while not demanding of the latter to get serious about relinquishing their aggressive intentions is the real suspension of rationality, if you really don’t support Israel’s destruction.
There’s time for everything. This isn’t the time to give Israel’s enemies a huge strategic advantage.
Barack Obama makes Bill Clinton look like a moderate.
That doesn’t mean Bill Clinton was a moderate.
Compared to Clinton most of the people running for President on the GOP side don’t look moderate either…lol.
In fact the more moderate ones face the wrath of the Tea Party. Ron Paul would mean what for the State of Israel. And some bring up Hitler. Which party was against standing up to Hitler? What Party was the anti-war Party of the 1930s?
And some wonder why Jews are bit apprehensive of embracing the Republican rhetoric…..While we all wring our hands as troops leave Afghanistan, remember Reagan got his ass blown out of Lebanon. Ortega is still in control. As Ricks points out, Bush Jr attempted to instill democracy in Iraq without a phase IV plan. I suggest many have not heeded Mr. Rubin’s call to look past partisan-ism. What American is devoid of any liberal values?
Ron Paul would mean what for the State of Israel.
Do you really think the foreign policy advocated by Ron Paul is more reflective of the Tea Party than that of, say, Sarah Palin?
What would Sarah Palin mean for the State of Israel? How about Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry?
I’ll grant that a lot of us appreciate Paul’s view regarding the Fed but he’s really not as popular among the Tea Party as some, including Paul himself, might think.
I didn’t leave the Dem Party. The Dem Party left me. It was hijacked years ago by far-left extremists (who were influenced by – hijacked by – the Socialist Party of America and the Communist Party of America).
Many (most?) rank-and-file Dems simply don’t know the facts surrounding this hijacking. So they are deceived (and self-deceived) into a self-righteous glorification of all things supposedly Democrat (which is mostly socialistic; that is, socialist-leaning).
It’s truly sad – for them and for what it’s doing nationwide, and worldwide! Just keep putting the facts out there for those who are still able to think for themselves will.
Is environmental protection socialism? Civil Rights and women equality socialism? Gay rights socialism? Would preventing Wall Street from sell toxic instruments again be socialist regulation? Is clean drinking water a socialist result? I believe the term we use to describe our political quality is “Liberal Democracy”, and liberal here is in an extension of the classical term. All men are created equal. The purpose of government is to advance the people.
That Democrats have embraced a more progressive view of government doesn’t mean such views are or were “liberal” ideas.
The majority of Americans are near center. When you say center you include many liberal values like equality and anti-discrimination laws. The fact no GOP candidate is going to run on anti-all abortion or anti-evolution tells you how far those views are from the majority view.
The point Mr. Rubin seems to be making is that “liberals” need to distinguish between Liberalism and Leftism. In fact, the Left has no problem with illiberal democracy, but a true liberal should.
There is a significant Republican element hoping to reduce the debt on cuts to the military. They are likely to team up with Democrats. Though I know there are billions of waste and fraud over at the DOD, now is not the time to pull the plug on both US high tech jobs and the advanced hardware we counter our adversaries with.
There is also an element within the GOP that is not particularly fond of Israel and other more religious elements that see the End of Days in Israel’s future.
There is also an element within the GOP that is not particularly fond of Israel
Holy Toledo, Max. That element is not holding the office of the President, nor is it ever likely to.
Unlike, say, the element within the Democrat Party that is not particularly fond of Israel.
Hellllooooo. Barack “1967 Borders and I Recognize The Muslim Brotherhood” Obama, anyone.
And have you noticed that Pat Buchanan is not even a Republican anymore?
I guess you don’t get out much in the blog world much to view how many “former officers or government officials” are quite anti-Israel. CNAS is also not particularly fond of Israel and more than a few I bet are Republican.
We all know why so many Christian groups support Israel and it is absurd to think Israelis are not aware of the religious motivation. Together these two elements do constitute a serious faction in the GOP. Go to Free Republic, American Thinker, or even PJ and see how quickly comment threads start making some rather distasteful remarks about Israelis and Jews (not the Lefty blog world doesn’t do the same). Please don’t suggest that PJ readers are mostly Democrats…….
You seriously think that Hillary Clinton is a non-radical Democrat?
A Democrat, yes, but non-radical?
You are sooooo naive. Hillary associated with the same type of radical leftists that Obozo did.
As if all that were not enough, how about the Muslim mole in the Secretary of State’s office AND bedroom!
Prove your claims. Even PJ report did not offer ANY proof of a Muslim mole. I would rather be naive than a proliferator of false statements.
And Hillary did not associate with Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Khalidi, Malley, Power, or others that Obama did.
in the meantime Chinese growth moderated to 9.5 percent..
The last of the kind of Liberal and Democrat referred to by the author died about ten years ago. Today’s Democrat Party is America’s new Socialist Party, widely populated by Communists and Fascists.
I relish, lead to I discovered exactly what I used to be looking for. You have ended my four day long hunt! God Bless you man. Have a great day. Bye
you’re truly a just right webmaster. The website loading speed is incredible. It seems that you are doing any distinctive trick. In addition, The contents are masterwork. you’ve performed a magnificent job in this subject!
I am not sure if I’m putting up this in the correct location, but I am getting ready to move to the U . S . and am seeking to secure jobs in the i . t field. I have a job lead with a business (LTJ Management, LLC, 900 Congress Ave, Suite L-150, Austin, TX 78701 (512) 895-9500) and sought some thoughts on the easiest method to investigate them to discover if they will be a good organization to work for. I’ve searched on their website, but thought somebody here could have some other ideas on where to look. Thank you.