Politikos XIV: The Politics of What Have You Done for Me Lately

Politikos XIV

July 17, 2012

Harvey Glickman

The Politics of What Have You Done for Me Lately

         The other night I attended a mass meeting of Jewish Americans for Obama.  It was at a synagogue in the Philadelphia suburbs (where they promised to have a similar meeting of Jewish Americans for Romney).  You have to respect the synagogue leadership for trying to perform a civic service.

         The place was packed, but the first thing that struck me was the small but vocal opposition, who were leafleting outside, and the few but loud contrarians inside.  Remember the Congressman who shouted “You Lie,” during one of Obama’s State of the Union addresses?  Well, it seems “you lie,” or “that’s a lie” is now part of the repertoire of dissenters at big public meetings.  A contribution of the “Tea Party” to the practice of American politics nowadays?

         The contrarians and the “You Lie” contingent – from the text of their leaflet—seem to think that Obama truckles to the Muslims in the Middle East.  The “evidence” is a set of quotes from a few newspaper and opposition critics about elements of the Muslim Brotherhood who have been connected to terrorism, about the expanding and public activities of the Muslim Brotherhood and the fact that the Obama Administration is dealing with the newly-elected President of Egypt, who is an official of the Brotherhood there, plus quotes from the Hamas (Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood) Covenant of 1988, vowing continuous war against Zionism.  So because Obama makes an overture to the newly-elected President of Egypt, the leaflet says “Obama loves the Muslim Brotherhood.”

         This is a symptom of the problem of public political debate in America today.  People expect total and complete support and agreement; otherwise you are an enemy.  In this rudimentary example, President Obama makes a gesture to a newly-elected president of another country (after all, we did back the elections), and he is vilified…because some people think they know that this guy is a totalitarian and dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

         Well, that was before the actual meeting.  For about 90 minutes, a parade of county, state and national elected officials ticked off things Obama and the Democrats had actually done for and with Israel: funds for defenses against rockets --$70 million in 2012 in addition to $205 million in 2011, and $3 billion annually in total foreign aid.  Since 2009 the US paid more than $1 billion toward a comprehensive missile defense system, to counter rockets from neighbors as well as Iran.  The system, called “David’s Sling,” has successfully tested the interceptor missile, “the Stunner,” and will be deployed in 2013.  The short-range anti-rocket system, called “Iron Dome,” was operational in 2011, and received $205 million from the US.  Obama has continued funding for the Arrow III, Israel’s ballistic missile defense, designed to protect against Iran’s space-traveling missiles, which might carry nuclear weapons.

         Despite the recitation of shorter versions of the above information, the “You Lie” contingent lay in wait for stragglers at the end of the meeting.  So I asked one of a covey of four persons: what was the evidence that President Obama is anti-Israel?   One piece was an article in Commentary magazine…sort of highbrow Fox News.  The other contention was that the US did not support Israel’s position is some obscure global forum.  Even if I knew what this organization was, the point I gathered was that the notion of support was equivalent to the US must echo whatever Israel says.  Even for staunch allies, that ain’t the way international politics works.

         The US, despite what some people evidently think, operates in a world of national interests, not merely victims and predators.  Henry Kissinger is reputed to have said (echoing Palmerston, the British foreign secretary in the 19^th Century), “the United States has no friends, it has no enemies, it has only interests.”  That’s the touchstone of the realist school of international relations.  Contrasting that, the liberal school puts forward the view that nations are also spiritual entities, and they have ideals.  The US promotes freedom and democracy, emphasized more strongly since the era of Woodrow Wilson.  It’s nice when the interests of the US coincide with its ideals; so supporting a country like Britain or France is usually not all that controversial inside the US…except for moments of “know nothingness,” symbolized by substituting “freedom fries” for French fries in the Congressional dining rooms in temporary moments of national pique.

          The “it’s a lie” contingent at my meeting sees international relations as friends and enemies, us versus them.  They are not interested in a creative role for the US in the totality of the Middle East; they want the US to support the Israeli government… period.  Dealing with the politicians in other countries – in Israel’s neighborhood – is a one way street: what’s good for Israel, as defined by the Israeli government of the day, is good for the USA.  Some people’s hearts might be warmed by that tendency, but that is not how international relations can operate in a world in which the US does not rule.  Tempered by liberalism and friendship, the US still must gauge its actions by what is in its middle and long-range interests in neutral, friendly and antagonistic environments.

         We can extend this to the way domestic politics is perceived nowadays.  Ordinary folk – and our politicians play into this – see and do politics as services performed.  We tend to measure our representatives in terms of what they get or do for us: a favor, a tax break, a reduced tariff, a job, an expedited license, and indeed services that we really hope we do not have to pay for.  Do we stop and consider how “legitimate” interests can be balanced?  Do we genuinely listen to both sides of an analysis?

(It happens: the Democrats copied the mandate to purchase health insurance from the Republicans—from a Heritage Foundation report and from Massachusetts under Governor Romney.)  Inside the country and outside, it is the job of leadership to balance interests, to listen to the other guy…and when it is different than your preference, not shout “You Lie!”

         Politics needs to be about recognizing interests and ideals that differ from your own, and then balancing interests in a democratic dialogue. I am tempted to see what happens at the synagogue’s Republican meeting.