Before I can proceed
with other matters that are waiting to be addressed,
I realize I must revisit the issue of the election. I've
had more communication from very upset readers on this matter than I have
ever received on any other issue.
One particularly savvy and
thoughtful reader wrote: "Any reasonable, thinking, caring person, who is a
fact driven voter could not have possibly voted for Obama..." And, indeed,
he is correct. The reality of the situation smacks one in the face. (My
hat would be off to you, Don, if I were wearing one.)
The key lies in the phrase
"fact-driven," for it is clear that a good percentage of people are
not fact-driven. They respond emotively, or are moved by symbols or
broad-ranging concepts.
~~~~~~~~~~
A politically active American
friend observed -- when I referred to the failure of mainstream media to
sufficiently publicize the Benghazi affair -- that anyone who wanted information
on this could have gotten it. And she, too, is correct. (Appreciated,
Reisa.)
Most Americans own computers or
Internet-linked devices. Once jarred by a sense that the media wasn't
saying everything that needed to be known (and certainly broad hints of this
were out there), they would only have had to google "Benghazi" to secure a huge
amount of information.
And so it is perhaps insufficient
to blame the media, which is indeed culpable. We are, I suggest, looking
at something deeper right now: Many Americans would rather not
know.
~~~~~~~~~~
The Democratic message is more
comforting: Bin Laden has been eliminated and al-Qaeda is seriously
weakened. The Arab spring will bring democracy to the Middle East and the
American president is helping it happen. At the same time, he is watching
out for the security of Israel.
Phew... then things aren't so bad,
huh?
A whole lot safer and more
reassuring than contemplating an al-Qaeda that moves from one country
to another in the region but is still a formidable and destructive
force; nations that have fallen into the hands of radical Islamists
for whom destruction of America is a chief goal; and a president who pushes
Israel to retreat to lines that are most definitely not secure.
Obama, presenting himself as a
symbol of hope, reassures. He's the candidate who cares about the little
man, not like that businessman Romney who deals with corporations.
(Negative campaigning also works, big time.) No need to delve into the
facts that would shatter this picture. Hold fast, hold fast, to that more
optimistic feeling. No need to be responsible for clarifying the
issues. No need to seek out and then grapple with information that
can cause sleeplessness. Cover your ears, close your eyes, before those
facts assail you.
~~~~~~~~~~
If this theory is correct, it
explains a whole lot about Obama's electoral success.
And there is reason to think
that it may have credibility. Eleven years ago, with the Twin Towers
attack, 3,000 Americans were destroyed. Destroyed by ideologically
radical Muslims who cannot even be identified as such in official
government communication in Obama's America.
Here in Israel we were aghast at
the severity, the trauma, of that attack, and then at the speed with which
Americans developed amnesia regarding the dangers that continue to threaten them
and their country.
Facts can be very unpleasant
things.
~~~~~~~~~~
If this theory is correct, it
suggests that Obama is not the problem, but rather a symptom of a dangerous
mindset.
~~~~~~~~~~
With regard to looking forward
politically, I make these observations:
Not enough to mourn the result of
the election. Not even enough to pinpoint the reasons why
it turned out as it did. Now is the time for Americans alarmed
by the situation to rally and plan.
I do not take away
from Romney the fact that he would have been a far better
president than Obama, who is a dangerous man. Not for a moment. He
might have achieved needed changes on many fronts, for Romney is, to the
very best of my understanding of his
record, honorable, competent, and a patriotic American. But
in the end he represented mostly an alternative to Obama, and many analysts are
now saying that this was not enough.
I agree.
Romney is not an ideologue.
He is someone who knows how to get things done and was selling himself that way:
as someone who has the capacity to fix much that is wrong with
the country, fiscally and otherwise.
But it may have
been insufficient because there was no clear vision. No
ideological passion.
In fact, in the waning days and
weeks of the campaign, Romney -- taking the cue from his political advisors --
waxed increasingly timid. The strategy was to avoid coming on too strong,
as this, it was feared, would alarm the electorate. No suggestions
about Islamist threats out there that might require the US to take a strong and
dedicated stand. No firm rebuttal to some of the Obama
claims.
No direct challenge to America to
face these matters.
~~~~~~~~~~
Now, I know I have just written
that the electorate, or some significant part of it, does not want to
know. Obviously, this is what Romney was attempting to deal
with. In fact, I strongly suspect that Romney was selected by Republicans
over ideologues such as Newt Gingrich who would have spoken out boldly because
he seemed safer and more comfortable and more "midstream."
But it's time for a
dramatically different approach.
Members of the Republican party
and Americans on the right more broadly must consolidate their efforts without
delay and establish a firm ideological base.
There are several reasons why this
is critical.
First, because hard
realities must be hammered home to the American populace.
Dangers to the US and the West that do exist will not disappear because
they are ignored. Calling Islamic regimes in Arab states
"democratic" will not make them so. Pretending that Iran can be dealt with does
not change the goals of the mullahs. Saying that al-Qaeda is essentially
defeated will not make it melt away in places where it is gaining
strength.
To publicly confront these
issues is to do the nation and the world a great service. They
must be written about and discussed, again and again and again.
~~~~~~~~~~
I've written in other contexts
about a paradigm shift -- a shift in how matters are
viewed. This is what is needed here. Yes, facts must be
exposed. But as many do not respond in terms of facts, a
new perception needs to be promoted that speaks also in terms of images and
emotions:
People who confront those
controversial issues unflinchingly must be embraced by the right, and
congratulated for being forthright. They must not be ostracized as
far right "kooks" or alarmists, but acknowledged as responsible individuals who
are struggling to present a picture of the world that makes sense in light of
significant realities.
It must be emphasized that those who are willing to deal with the tough
stuff are the true patriots, who can save the country. Avoiding the issues
exacerbates danger and in the end the country will pay.
There may be difference of opinion on how to deal with those issues, but
public debate on these matters is laudable.
And as the issues are debated, there absolutely needs to be -- as part of
that ideology -- a sense of dedication to traditional values. A reawakened
pride in the concept of American exceptionalism. While problems must
be identified, the positive must also be reinforced, and values drawn
upon in solving those problems.
~~~~~~~~~~
What I am describing is a process
that requires clarity and dedication on the right. No hand-wringing. No
self-pity. Just a determination to move on.
Little by little, a new awareness,
a new way of thinking can make its way at a grass roots level. Sounds
impossible, perhaps, but you know what they say about a journey of a thousand
miles starting with the first step.
~~~~~~~~~~
The second goal of such a
campaign, of course, is that it creates fertile ground for election of
conservative candidates, both in the mid-term election in two years, and in the
next presidential election.
~~~~~~~~~~
Daniel Greenfield wrote about all
of this superbly yesterday, and I cite portions of his piece here (with emphasis
added):
"Moderation does not win
elections...America's new rulers were once considered far more extreme and
unpopular than the Tea Party. Embracing radical and unpopular ideas is
not a losing strategy. It is a short term losing strategy and a long term
winning strategy so long as your ideas can be used to build a movement capable
of turning those ideas into an organizing force.
"...Most people, left and right,
want a society based on values. Opting out of the values debate means that we
lose by default...
"...It's not enough to be against
things. It's not enough to be for things because they are the opposite of the
things that the people you are at war with are for.
"A movement needs a deeper sense of passion. It must be fueled by a certainty that it holds the answer to the problems of its society and its civilization. It must believe that its existence would be necessary even if the left did not exist. And it must be willing to do anything to win.
"A movement needs a deeper sense of passion. It must be fueled by a certainty that it holds the answer to the problems of its society and its civilization. It must believe that its existence would be necessary even if the left did not exist. And it must be willing to do anything to win.
"...Revolutions are not born out
of success, they are born out of despair. They rise out of the dark hours of the
night. They come from the understanding that all the other options are running
out. Sometimes you have to fall down to rise and sometimes you have to
hit bottom, to gather one last breath and fight to reach the
top.
"This is still a wonderful country. It is the finest place that this civilization has produced. Despite the events of the last day, it is worth fighting for."
"This is still a wonderful country. It is the finest place that this civilization has produced. Despite the events of the last day, it is worth fighting for."
~~~~~~~~~~
And now, a correction regarding my
last posting, one I make with considerable embarrassment. That I was
over-tired and over-wrought might explain the error, but does not excuse
it.
When writing last, right after the
election results come out, I googled "Obama acceptance speech 2012" and picked
up a link from that search. The only problem is that it was his acceptance
of the nomination, not acceptance for having won the election. Oops!
Now accept my apologies, please. (And with thanks to Maura S-F for
catching this.)
Here is the proper
link:
~~~~~~~~~~
People have begun asking me how
Israel's situation will be affected by the Obama win. I am answering
that it's too soon to tell. But I would less than honest if I did not
admit that I feel great anxiety; I have picked up some vibes that are decidedly
not positive (to put it mildly).
Remember what Obama shouted
to a crowd that was booing Romney:
"Don't boo, vote! Voting is the best
revenge!" Revenge? Who thinks this way?
One commentator wrote that Obama
has become "President Revenge." Dan Shapiro, the US ambassador to Israel
demurs, saying Obama isn't like that. No?
~~~~~~~~~~
Netanyahu knows Romney personally
and has a good relationship with him. It was no secret that he preferred a
Romney win, but he did not interfere in the election.
There are left wing people
here -- mostly those who will be involved in our upcoming elections -- who
are attacking Netanyahu now. Pointing their fingers, they say that if we
have trouble with Obama, it will be Netanyahu's fault. This is a way to
weaken him, but it's unfair. There was trouble from Obama before the
election, and way before Romney was even nominated. Obama has never liked
Netanyahu.
I would hate to see this issue
used against Netanyahu in the elections. But I am without doubt that Obama
would be delighted by this and happy to play out the scenario to its
limit.
In any event, it seems almost a
given that Obama will again exert enormous pressure on Israel, primarily
with regard to making concessions to the Arabs.
What Prime Minister
Netanyahu needs most is support and encouragement. And American
supporters of Israel have a role to play here.
~~~~~~~~~~
For those who utilize FaceBook
there's another way to register support for Israel and spread messages
broadly:
"Like" the page,
follow its messages, and SHARE with others.
~~~~~~~~~~
©
Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner,
functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be
reproduced only
with
proper attribution.
If
it is reproduced and emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be
noted.
This material
is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to
receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and
include your name in the text of the
message.
No comments:
Post a Comment