The K.F. Stone Weekly

This Week's Guest Columnist: God

An introductory note: Lest anyone feel the necessity of getting their knickers in a twist over this week's piece, please note before reading that it is satire, herein defined as "a literary composition in verse or prose, in which human folly or vice are held up to scorn, derision or ridicule." It will be left to the individual reader's determination as to whether the piece is literary . . . or literate.

 

It seems that once again, President Obama is in deep water with many of those who claim to be my most loyal adherents. From what I read and hear, these children of mine are acting . . . well, very childishly. They are all terribly exorcised over the fact that the president did not mention me during his brief Thanksgiving address last Thursday (Although he did end his message with "And may God bless you" and did issue thanks in an earlier speech while pardoning a turkey). "Somebody ought to remind Obama that when Americans sit down around a meal today and give thanks, they give thanks to God," one columnist acidly noted. A Fox News personality complained that the president's "remarks were void of any religious references although Thanksgiving is a holiday traditionally steeped in giving thanks and praise to God." Yet a third -- one Ben Shapiro -- tweeted "Unreal that Obama doesn't mention God in Thanksgiving message. Militant atheist. To whom does he think we are giving thanks?"

For the love of God! (Or should I say "For the love of Me?") With all the unemployment, gross income inequality, global warming and international chaos going on around the planet, this is the best they can come up with? This is the most important issue to discuss? If giving me my due in public is so all fired important, why didn't these same folks go after Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum -- none of whom mentioned me in their Thanksgiving messages? Its all rather silly and puerile, and brings to mind a couple of quotes from two of my most gifted children: William Shakespeare and King Solomon. The first two come from Willie -- "Much Ado About Nothing," and "What a piece of work is a man . . ." The second is from the quill of King Shlomo who, writing under the pen name of Koheleth (that's Ecclesiastes to my non-Jewish children) noted "There's nothing new under the sun."

Do all those currently deriding Barack Obama for failing to mention me really believe they've hit on something new? Stuff and nonsense! More importantly, are they really all that outraged and offended by his omission? Likely not, but hey, anything they can tar the man with they see as fair game.

How well I remember the political food fight between Adams and Jefferson back in 1800. To me, it seems like only yesterday. First, campaigners for the young "Sage of Monticello" accused "Old Sink or Swim" of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." In response, Adams' surrogates called Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father . . . a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward!" One thing you've got to hand them: back then calumnies had a lot more linguistic "oopmh" then they do today.

Now, did Jefferson's mouthpieces really, truly believe that Adams was a "hideous hermaphroditical creature?" Of course not, although it did make for a pretty nifty alliteration. Likewise, I can tell you that none of Adams' handlers went to bed at night thinking "Jefferson is a half-breed atheist." So why did they even bother giving voice to these slurs? Politics and the art of winning, plain and simple. Indeed, there is "Nothing new under the sun." I told you King Sol was one gifted son-of-a-gun . . .

Personally, I can tell you that I get more than my share of thanks from people attending churches, synagogues, mosques and other assorted houses of worship. I don't need -- nor particularly want -- thanks from politicians on the hustings. I am humbled by all those invoking my name and giving thanks before meals; I am delighted whenever anyone engages in feeding the poor, clothing the naked or caring for the orphaned, the homeless or the sick. I am not in the least offended when people take the time to question my existence or wonder aloud why bad things happen to good people. Doing justice, loving mercy and walking with humility; these have always been my three highest priorities for all of you.

On the other hand, I am really stupefied by all those who use my name -- or worse, call upon me -- to justify acts of violence, bigotry, destruction or utter selfishness. Please be forewarned: claiming to know my will better than the next guy is not a good way to earn divine points; proclaiming that you are more pious or beloved than the next guy is the precise opposite of piety or divine love. How person X, Y, or Z will be judged in the end of days -- and when that end will come -- is my business, not yours.

Now, with regards to politics in the United States, let me state emphatically that I lean toward neither the Democrats nor the Republicans; I favor neither the Tea Party nor the Occupy Wall Street Crowd; that I can just as easily love and bless a conservative as a Communist. As the one whose very essence is existence, I transcend all labels. If you wish to know something of my political ideals, study the Bible; don't just quote it from memory -- really, truly study it along with as many commentaries as you can comprehend. There you will discover that I am on the side of the poor and downtrodden; that I loathe war and baseless hatred; that I really, truly have created you to be each others keepers. What you will not find is that I have a position on Capital Gains taxes, Oil Depletion Allowances, prayer in the public schools, carrying concealed weapons are a thousand-and-one other temporal issues. (Although I must say, having paid a great deal of attention to how my children are treated in the workplace, I am far more pro-labor than management.) Do not -- I repeat DO NOT -- use my name to justify your political platforms; I am not here to endorse anyone's candidacy. For you see, my dear children, I really, truly do believe in the separation of church -- and synagogue and mosque -- and state. I mean after all, it is I who created Thomas Jefferson.

Personally, I could care less if President Obama mentions me in a Thanksgiving address. That is mere verbiage. What I do care about is how he -- and his administration and the Congress and the nation he tries to lead act -- not what they say.

So roll up your sleeves, park your arch pettiness by the side of the road, and try working together for the common good -- not just the enrichment of the already rich.

That will be thanks enough . . .

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

Mitt Romney: Campaigning in Poetry

   Years ago, Governor Mario Cuomo distilled the essence of the political process into precisely eight insightful words: “You campaign in poetry; you govern in prose.” By this, Cuomo sought to instruct future generations of office-seekers about the perverse dichotomy that exists between the theater of words and the reality of deeds. In a perfect world no such dichotomy would exist; the soaring promises one made during a campaign would be soon become the law of the land.  But this is far from a perfect world; the gap between what candidates may proclaim and then as office holders can do is indeed vast. And woe to the man or woman who forgets where they stood last year as opposed to this week . . .

   The current crop of Republican presidential aspirants would do well to heed Cuomo’s dictum – none more so than former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

     Over the years, Governor Romney – who seemingly has been running for president most of his adult life – has been characterized by both friend and foe alike as a man who “never met a position he could not espouse.” Whether it is on issues as diverse as war and peace, healthcare, abortion and stem-cell research, taxes, terrorism or nuclear weapons, Romney has been all over the map.  To watch Romney denigrate and disown the very healthcare program he instituted in Massachusetts – in order to deride and defame the president’s program – is to witness a man sinking in quicksand yet declaring it solid ground.

   Even more glaringly apparent are Romney’s flip flops and position changes on Iran.  In late October 2007, shortly after President George W. Bush announced tougher economic sanctions against Iran, then-candidate Romney applauded the president’s action.  Nonetheless, he was quoted at the time as saying, ‘If for some reasons they continue down their course of folly toward nuclear ambition, then I would take military action if that's available to us,’ He further suggested that as president, he would “. . . advocate a military blockade or ‘bombardment of some kind'' if Iran did not yield to diplomatic and economic pressure to give up its nuclear program.” Fascinatingly, when asked in 2007 whether he would need Congressional consent for a military raid on Iran, Romney said that he would have to pass the issue by his lawyers first – perfectly understandable for a CEO, perfectly unthinkable for a Commander-in-Chief.  "You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do,” Romney said at the time.  Responding to this, a Wall Street Journal editorial wryly noted, “Egad. Call in the attorneys? Perhaps it is Mr. Romney’s experience in business that taught him to want lawyers at his elbow, given that no CEO can survive without them these days . . . . [D]eferring to lawyers to tell a President when he can and cannot use force to defend the country is not the proper understanding of executive power under the Constitution, and it is dangerous if it is the first instinct of a Commander in Chief. Mr. Romney should have said that a President’s first duty is to do whatever it takes to protect the United States, and that he’d have the Constitutional authority to use military force to do so . . . . Mr. Romney doesn’t need a lawyer; he needs to reread the Federalist Papers.”

   In November 2011, still-candidate Romney has toned down the bellicosity.  In a piece he published recently in the Wall Street Journal¸ Romney now declares, “I want peace. And if I am president, I will begin by imposing a new round of far tougher economic sanctions on Iran. I will do this together with the world if we can, unilaterally if we must. I will speak out forcefully on behalf of Iranian dissidents.  By this, he clearly means to imply that President Obama has failed to impose “tough economic sanctions” and has not “sp[oken] out forcefully on behalf of Iranian dissidents.” Truth to tell, President Obama has rallied the international community and isolated Iran. Moreover, the cooperation of our international partners has allowed us to impose the most aggressive set of sanctions that Iran has ever faced, including persuading the U.N. to impose a fourth round of sanctions in 2010 and signing tough legislation a month later.  With regards to supporting Iranian dissidents, as far back as 2009, President Obama “strongly condemned” what he characterized as the “unjust actions” in response to Iranian protesters.  He described the American government as being “appalled and outraged.”

   Governor Romney has further promised “I will back up American diplomacy with a very real and very credible military option. I will restore the regular presence of aircraft carrier groups in the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region simultaneously. I will increase military assistance to Israel and coordination with all of our allies in the region.”  One wonders whether Romney understands Mario Cuomo’s distinction between poetry and prose.  If he did, he would quickly recognize that his promises are, to use an old expression, “A day late and a dollar short.”  While the Obama Administration is pursuing a diplomatic channel – which Romney and the other Republican aspirants view as a weakness -- it has consistently refused to take any options off the table.  Whether Governor Romney knows it or not there already is a full-time carrier presence in the Persian Gulf, and carriers are frequently present in the Mediterranean to support deployments in the Middle East. The record shows that President Obama has sought unprecedented levels of security assistance for Israel, significantly increasing U.S. military aid to Israel, conducting military exercises, and financing the “Iron Dome” mortar and rocket defense system. As the Washington Post put it, “Obama has also greatly strengthened security and military ties with the Jewish state and defended Israel repeatedly at the United Nations.

    It is an axiom of modern campaign politics that Republican hopefuls must run as far to the right of center as they dare during primary season and then, once nominated, gravitate towards the center for November. It is clear that on domestic issues and questions such as abortion, the beginning of life and healthcare – to name but three – Mitt Romney is far, far further to the right in 2011 than he was in 2006 -- or ‘07, ‘08, ‘09 or ‘10.  And when it comes to foreign policy and defense issues, he is unaware or out of touch with what the Obama Administration has accomplished.  He is merely reciting poetry while the president is governing in prose.

   Not only does Mitt Romney need to “reread the Federalist Papers”; he should familiarize himself with the wisdom of Mario Cuomo . . .     

 ©2011 Kurt F. Stone

Cain Ain't Able . . . And Neither Are Perry, Paul, Gingrich et al

   Writing a column on the ups-and-downs, the tumbles and stumbles of all those seeking the Republican presidential nomination is not easy.  It seems about as pointless as writing a piece on a tennis match while it's in progress; in the time it takes to shape a thought or identify an apt expression, the ball can easily have crossed the net a dozen times or more, the advantage shifting with each volley, lob or smash.  So too with the Republican field: each day brings new polls which may proclaim a new "leader of the pack."  He who is in first on Monday, can easily rank third on Thursday.  (n.b. My use of the pronoun "he" is deliberate; Michele Bachmann hasn't been a factor since August 14 -- the day after she won the Ames Straw Poll.)

   This past week, the lion's share of ink has gone to Herman Cain and Rick Perry; the former because of his inability to address charges of sexual harassment with any honesty, consistency or professionalism; the latter because of an "Oops!" moment in which he could not recall the names of all three federal cabinet agencies he -- like most Republican hopefuls -- has pledged to eliminate. 

   As of today, it appears that the harassment charges against Herman Cain have yet to deal his candidacy a fatal blow.  His core constituency is still, for the most part, with him; they are willing to look beyond both the charges and the candidate's various -- and varying -- counter-charges ("It's all a lie!" "It is a smear perpetrated by the Perry campaign!"  "It is a conspiracy on the part of the liberal media!") and applaud him for his down-home, "common-sense" approach to addressing the nation's challenges and ills. At the same time, it must be stated that Herman Cain is never -- repeat never -- going to be the Republican standard bearer.  From day one, his has been a campaign based mostly on personality.  That he lacks a professional organization capable of going the distance is obvious; one of the first things a seasoned campaign staff does is a complete and scrupulous vetting of their own candidate, so that hopefully, there won't be any surprises.  One of the first rules in a serious campaign is that you have to know even more about your candidate's foibles than his or her opponents do.  Cain's campaign staff clearly did not do their job.  The second rule is to school your candidate on as many issues as humanly possible.  By now it is clear that Herman Cain is the master of misstatement.  But despite all this, he is still the front-runner -- for whatever that's worth -- in Florida.  Look for Herman Cain to secure a show on Fox sometime next year . . .

   Herman Cain's appeal has been his "plain-speaking," his "common-sense approach to the issues," and the fact that he's a political neophyte who comes from the world of business. His gaffs, misstatements and untruths have served to merely prop up and reify that appeal.  Perry's appeal, on the other hand, has been his "good-old-boy" Acme-booted Texas swagger; that he was barely a "C student" at a Texas aggie college is actually a plus with his core supporters.  At least he isn't some sort of effete Ivy League snob like Barack Obama . . . or George W. Bush.  

   Like Cain, Governor Rick Perry is never going to become the Republican nominee -- and not merely because he forgot to name the Department of Energy.  Like Herman Cain, Rick Perry is simply "Not ready for prime time." This week's "junior moment" turns out to be merely the latest in a series of gaffs, misstatements and spells of gross inarticulateness.  Seeing Perry do self-parody on Letterman has served to take a ton of steam out of the swagger. Although being able to hold one's own in a debate is not necessarily a criterion for being leader of the Free World, it sure helps one to be taken seriously as a potential candidate.  

   Whether they know it or not, both Cain and Perry are toast . . .

   With the possible exception of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (recently referred to as "The Great White Nope") and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman (who has pretty much pinned all his hopes on New Hampshire), the rest of the Republican field -- Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Paul, Santorum, and Gingrich -- is definitely made up of third-stringers. Romney and Huntsman -- both of whom are Mormons, which is a problem with many on the Christian right -- possess a measure of polish and grativas which the "simple six" clearly lack.  Governor Romney is despised by many in the G.O.P., who consider him a "Republican in Name Only" (RINO) and continually flail him for being on every side of every issue. Huntsman is suspect not only because he served as President Obama's Ambassador to China, but because he has the audacity to state that manmade global warming is a reality.  Should Romney become his party's nominee (highly likely), look for the Obama campaign to remind voters that as the founder and head of Bain Capital ($65 billion in assets as of 2010) he made a 9-figure fortune by purchasing companies and then selling off assets, which put literally tens of thousands of people out of work. Should  Huntsman become his party's nominee (highly unlikely) look for the president to thank him again and again and again for his dedicated service in China.  

   This past week, former Speaker Newt Gingrich has seen his poll numbers on the rise.  This is due in part because in comparison to Cain and Perry, Gingrich comes off as a "deep thinker" who "knows and understands the issues."  Anyone who has read any of his books or given a serious listen to any of his speeches, will know that Mr. Gingrich is a charlatan; a pompously corrupt, self-merchandising corporation posing as a man with a plan.

   Back on December 31, 2010, I published a piece entitled And You Thought Tomorrow Begins 2011.  In it, I wrote about five potential Republican candidates for president: Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Haley Barbour and Mike Huckabee.  I also suggested that it was likely that none of them would garner enough enthusiasm to be considered a viable challenger to President Obama.  At the tail end of the article I went out on a limb and suggested that perhaps the party would, after finding fault with virtually every other candidate, draft former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.  Stranger things have been known to happen.  Will it happen?  I just don't know . . .

   One thing I do know: when it comes to choosing a president, I want and expect someone who is a lot smarter, better educated and more polished than I.

    And from where I sit, that person is still Barack Obama. 

    ©2011 Kurt F. Stone

PRE-Occupied

   The Occupy Wall Street wave seems to have struck a raw nerve among the "1%" and their cheerleaders.  Why else would they be characterizing the so-called "99%" of being an "unruly mob" made up of "Communists," and "anti-Semites," who "haven't found jobs" because of their "tattooed necks, gauged ears, facial piercings and dirty dreadlocks?" Reading, watching or listening to the comments of such conservative stalwarts as Newt Gingrich, Bill Kristol Maybeth Hicks and the Emergency Committee For Israel (created by the Weekly Standard's Mr. Kristol) is to get the eerie feeling that Yogi Berra called "deja vu all over again" -- a return to the late 1960s/early 1970s when the "New Left" was tarred with pretty much the same noxious brush.  Back then, we were accused of being "atheistic Communists" who should "take a bath, get a haircut, get a job" and "go back to Russia where you belong."  

   40 years ago, the issues causing so many to march and to gather were war, peace, and economic justice; not so terribly dissimilar from that which undergirds the current wave of angry young Americans.  Back then, we were accused of being spoiled brats; unpatriotic misfits who should "love it or leave it."  And, truth to tell, many of us were rather spoiled; tuition was low, rent was cheap, gas cost about 35¢ a gallon and  CEOs were paid nearly 30 times more than an average worker.  Today's wave is faced with a far more difficult world; one in which debt is endemic, the cost of living is stratospheric and a CEO is now making more than 450 times that of an average worker.  40 years ago, despite protests, the future seemed like a limitless horizon; today, the deck is stacked against most.  Back then, the political process was still viewed as a viable avenue for progressive change; today, utter distrust of that process is a given -- by both the left and the right.  And by that, we refer to the Occupy Wall Street wave and the Tea Party movement.

   Both sides are stimulated by anger at a system which seems to exist only for the sake of its financial backers. Both sides are furious that the will of the people has been completely usurped by the wallet of the powerful.  And yet, there are a couple of fascinating differences:

• In comparison to the Tea Party, the OWS folks are far more diverse.  A typical OWS gathering includes people of all ages, colors, religions (or lack thereof) and political philosophies.  Although there are undoubtedly some members of religious and ethnic minorities within the Tea Party ranks, the movement gives the impression of being overwhelmingly white and Christian.
• The structure (or again, lack thereof) of OWS is such that it all but defies cooptation.  It is difficult to imagine OWS endorsing insurgent candidates, let being taken over by the Democratic Party in the way that the Tea Party now controls the G.O.P.'s far-right flank.
• In their speeches, arguments and exhortations, Tea Party luminaries aim for the gut; their platform can be embroidered on a tea towel -- "Lower taxes, less regulation, more freedom."  OWS speakers, by comparison aim far more often for the head; their platform -- the  "99% Declaration" (some of which is highly debatable and overly naive) -- reads more like a treatise than a series of slogans.  (I wrote about this left-right dichotomy back in April 2010 in a piece entitled "Head and Heart").  Additionally, for what it's worth, to me, OWS speakers sound more articulate . . .

   When the Tea Party movement first came to the public's attention back in 2008-9, they were accused of being  a racist faction filled with people who were against abortion, birth-control, public education and the teaching of Evolution; brandished weapons and believed President Obama was a foreign-born Muslim; and supported a whole host of far, far right loony-tune ideas.  Immediately -- and understandably -- there was a cacophonous roar from the folks at Fox, the Washington Times and the G.O.P. itself, who screamed "How dare you characterize an entire movement because of the beliefs of a mere handful?  They do not represent what the Tea Party movement is all about! And besides, what ever happened to free speech?"

   Seems to me that in proclaiming the Occupy Wall Street wave to both anti-Semitic and anti-Israel, people like Bill Kristol, Newt Gingrich, Ann Coulter, Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin  and the "Emergency Committee for Israel" -- among many others -- are doing precisely that which they hated having done to their side: characterizing an entire movement or wave because of the actions or statements of a handful.  The expression "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" comes to mind.  Without question, there are people on the left who are pro-Palestinian; some of them are attending OWS gatherings.  And yes, we have seen photos of people holding up anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist signs at OWS rallies. Investigating these claims of anti-Jewish, anti-Israel sentiments, the Anti Defamation League found them to be highly overstated and not worthy of further comment . . . to which they were accused of being a "mere arm of the Obama White House."  Talk about chutzpah . . .

   In truth, a sizeable percentage of the OSW wave is Jewish.  There were actually well-attended services on Yom Kippur and a haimesche succah in the park, where Jews, Christians and Muslims came by for some shade, a snack and a singalong.

   Just about everyone accusing the OWS wave of being in thrall to the anti-Semites has quoted the same L.A. protester -- a woman named Patricia McAllister: "I think that the Zionist Jews, who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve, which is not run by the federal government . . . they need to be run out of this country."  Or they have noted that on the American Nazi Party website, ". . . leader Rocky Suhayda has voiced support for Occupy Wall St. and asked 'Who hold the wealth and power in this country?  The Judeo-Capitalists . . .'"  

  It's all so terribly familiar.  Back in the 60s and early 70s, the Establishment press first attacked the New Left for being dirty, bearded, pot-smoking hedonists.  Then they labeled them "Communists,"  "Socialists," and "Anarchists" (as if the terms were synonymous) and warned that unless stopped, they would attempt to take over the United States by violent means.  Those of us who were part of the New Left felt a measure of vindication; that in pointing out a series of injustices within the American political system -- and in pushing for peace and greater economic justice -- we had hit a raw nerve.  Perhaps the same can be said of the Occupy Wall Street wave; that they too have hit a raw nerve by repeatedly pointing out some very difficult truths.

   More power to you!

©2011 Kurt F. Stone