► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Jay Nordlinger’

Bitterfest 2012

by Mojambo ( 314 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Mitt Romney, Politics, Republican Party, Socialism at November 8th, 2012 - 2:00 pm

Although he made some mistakes, Romney ran the best campaign he could. That he failed was the public’s fault. America lost the chance to have a real professional in the Oval Office.

by Jay Nordlinger

Four years ago, at just this time, I wrote a column headed “Bitterfest ’08.” I pledged a couple of weeks ago that I would not write such a column this year. I pledged to myself, I mean. I said, “If Romney loses, I’m not going to write another Bitterfest column. Just not gonna do it.” I had several reasons, all good.

But here I go . . .

  I got started early on this year’s Bitterfest — with an Election Night blogpost, here. I cited an Obama slogan: “Mitt Romney: Not one of us.” Yes, Mitt Romney is not one of them, I said — not one of Obama’s “us.” Neither am I.

What are we, some kind of American remnant? Well, perhaps. But that seems a little dark, even for me . . .

  Here is something else from that blogpost (not that I’ll repeat the whole thing): The American public took a look at Obama and his record. They took a look at Mitt and his. And they said, “Four more years!” Four more years of Obama, and all he represents.

You might say they were snookered the first time, in ’08. This time they knew what they were getting — and asked for it. Demanded it.

Okay.

  Every time a Republican presidential nominee loses, I hear the same thing, from Republicans, and especially from movement-conservative types: “The candidate wasn’t good enough. He should have done this, that, or the other thing. Or he should have been someone else. Then the people would have voted for us. Our standard-bearer was defective.”

I think this is baloney, particularly in 2012. The voters had a clear choice. Each presidential nominee was a good — very good — representative of his point of view. The voters had plenty of information, no matter how biased the media are. They had plenty of good, solid information. Conventions, debates, etc.

And they chose.

The Left is winning, in more than the electoral sense. The Left is winning culturally — psychologically, spiritually, if you will. They control education, the entertainment industry . . . need I give the whole list?

We are talking about some deep matters here, not about simple electioneering. I trust you know what I mean.

[………]

  I think the people — the holy, sacred people — are wrong about movies, music, morality. A whole range of things. But they’re supposed to be brimming with wisdom when they enter the voting booths on Election Day?

That would be strange.

  I think Romney would have made an excellent president — a superb, sterling president. Perhaps an historic one, the “turnaround artist” we needed. There’s no way to find out, of course. It would have had to be tested.

  I suppose people didn’t care that he had extensive business experience. In fact, it may have worked against him. Say what you will about Obama’s background: At least it’s not tainted by business! Grubby, unseemly business.

What’s business good for, anyway? Jobs, prosperity, vitality? Hey, who needs business when ya got government?

Honestly, if people don’t respect businessmen, that makes perfect sense. They’ve been told all their lives, through movies and television and everything else, that businessmen are villainous. Sometimes these things have an effect, you know? That’s why people do them — make movies and such.

(I told you this would be a bitterfest. Credit me with truth in labeling, if with nothing else.)

  In our culture — as manufactured by Hollywood — businessmen are the villains, time after time. And the heroes? Lawyers, political activists, journalists, environmentalists. You know the deal.

  At the end of the ’08 campaign, Obama promised people that he would “fundamentally transform” our nation. Did he mean that businessmen would cease to be villains? No, no. Anyway, the people said, “Go ahead.” And they’ve now said, “We like it. Keep doing it.”

I was tremendously heartened by the tea-party movement. I had thought the country would go quietly unto social democracy. I thought they wanted to be Norway (without the oil, of course, because the people, through their elected representatives, won’t permit the acquisition of American oil). But the tea-party movement represented hope. Maybe there was life in the old gal yet. Maybe people still wanted the Constitution, fiscal discipline, and free enterprise.

They were demonized so quickly and thoroughly, the tea-party people. Tarred as racist. Once they succeed in tarring you as racist, you’re pretty much done.

Some time ago, a young woman was talking to me about a human-rights heroine in the Arab world. She belonged to an Islamist party (the heroine did). But don’t worry, said the young woman: It’s like how you can be a Republican and still not have sympathy with the tea-party people.

Ah, I see.

Anyway, it could be that the tea party was kind of the last gasp of Constitutionalism and free enterprise. A final spasm, before the Left achieves its dream of making our country like Europe.

The main Obama slogan was “Forward.” And “forward,” from these people, means lefter — more toward Europe, more toward social democracy and socialism. More toward collectivism in general. Ever bigger government, ever greater government dependence, an ever smaller private sphere.

It could be that Reaganism was a mere parenthesis — a brief slowing-down in this march “forward” toward Obama’s, and the Left’s, ideals.

  I’ve made this point a million times — I hope longtime readers will forgive the repetition: Conservatives always say that the Left monopolizes education, K through graduate school. And then when left-wing candidates win elections, these conservatives say, “Blow me down, how did that happen?!”

I was educated by the Left, like everyone else. But what they fed me, I largely spat out, eventually. It would not be normal for most people to do this. Most people accept what they’re taught. Hasn’t that been true in every time and place forever? (I don’t claim to be the Durants or someone.) (Wish I were.)

  The Left has . . . what? They have education, the movies, entertainment television, popular music, the news media — the core shaping institutions.

And we have . . . what? Country music, talk radio, and NASCAR?

Ain’t enough! Need more juice!

[…………….]

  For the next four years, conservatives will be clinging to their guns and their religion more than ever, that’s for sure.

  Hey, won’t it be exciting to see what Obama’s “flexibility” leads to!

  And Obamacare! Like Julia, we’re wedded to the government forever. Amen.

  In this campaign, Mitt Romney did not have merely Obama and the Democrats to overcome: He had the grievance culture, the entitlement culture, and the Hollywood culture to overcome. These cultures, together, have triumphed in American life.

[……..]

  Perhaps the current America simply would not and could not elect a Mitt Romney. He is, in a way, out of his time. Out of step. A throwback. That’s one reason I like him so.

In America today, we have 14-year-olds screwing like banshees. Everyone thinks that’s cool, or most people do. We have abortion on demand. Nobody gets married, except gays. Divorce is over 50 percent, I believe. It’s “no fault” divorce at that. “The culture is a sewer,” as my friend Mark Helprin says.

Could a Mitt Romney win in this environment? An environment that adores Bill Clinton? Cool is king. Obama is cool. Romney is not. He’s square.

You know that Obama sex ad, the one appealing to the hookup culture? “When it’s your first time, make sure it’s with a really cool guy — but not your husband, ha ha ha!” I have paraphrased. But you know the ad I’m talking about.

If that ad doesn’t backfire but actually succeeds, Romney can’t win.

There is no place for Ozzie Nelson in this culture. There is a place, of course — but not an election-winning place. A remnant place. You get to be the target on Saturday Night Live. Never the cool kid, never the mainstreamer.

[……….]

  Romney wanted the continuation of American primacy in the world. As the 20th century was the “American Century,” he wanted the 21st century to be an American century. The public, I gather, is not much into that. Decline is a choice. And the people may well be saying, “Yes, please.”

[……….]

 

  I would find Obama’s victory this week easier to swallow if he had not campaigned like such a scoundrel — if he had not painted Romney as a plutocrat, felon, and traitor who would give your wife cancer and put y’all back in chains. (Obama had some help from his partners and friends, true.)

It’s one thing to be a left-winger who leads the country to ruin, wittingly or not. But do you have to be an SOB while you’re doing it?

[……..]

 

  I’ve said it a million times: There’s nothing compassionate about economic collapse. You think some belt-tightening is painful? Try economic collapse. You can ask the Grecians (as a great man once said). (Other than Keats, I mean.)

  Ahmadinejad was dead-right, I’m afraid: You can’t hold a $16 trillion debt and be a world power. Out of the mouths of genocidal maniacs . . .

  I doubt that many Americans were impressed by Romney’s acts of charity — his charitable giving. Charity is passé, even quaint (like so much about Mitt). If you want to give, you give to the government. And then government gives to the needy, on the government’s terms.

I remember a very good half-hour on Firing Line between Bill Buckley and Michael Kinsley. They were talking about the basics of life: the relationship between the citizen and the state, etc. And the subject of charity came up, somehow. Kinsley exploded, “People shouldn’t have to receive charity!” (I’m paraphrasing, but closely.) “They are owed payments by the government because they’re human beings!”

[……..]

He also says that resistance to higher taxation is “unpatriotic,” as you know. (None dare call it McCarthyism.)

  I wonder: Is there enough oil and natural gas under private lands to keep us going? Because there’s no way in hell the Left will let us explore or drill elsewhere, no matter how discreetly, benignly, and beneficially we do it.

Let’s hope that importing is easy and convenient . . .

  Did Hurricane Sandy tip it for Obama? I don’t know how you’d measure such a thing. On MSNBC, Chris Matthews said, “I’m so glad we had that storm last week.” I’m sure he is.

(I have since learned he apologized for the remark.)

  If Obama had lost, I wonder how he would have behaved. Graciously? Like Mitt? Or no?

  Well, we won’t have to worry about the integrity of the Constitution. Because, no matter what the administration does, John Roberts will be there to stop what is unconstitutional. Yessiree, that’s our chief: caring not a fig about political pressures . . .

  Last Inauguration Day, Roberts messed up Obama’s presidential oath. This Inauguration Day, things should be pretty chummy between the two.

  The people saw the vice-presidential debate. And they wanted Obama-Biden anyway. Sometimes a cliché is handy: There’s no accounting for taste.

  “The bad old Republicans favor the rich!” say the Democrats. The thing about the rich: They’re going to be fine regardless. They’re not depending on Social Security and Medicare in their old age. They’re not looking for a job. They’re not worried about paying for groceries. In good times and bad, they’re basically fine.

No, it’s the less well off who need a robust economy. Why Republicans don’t make this point, routinely, is a mystery.

[………]

 

  The Left should like America better now, right? And Europe should too, right? Among Europeans, there is a certain kind of pro-American, you may have discovered: He thinks America is okay when the people elect Democrats. Otherwise, no.

There is a certain kind of pro-Israel person too — or semi-pro-Israel person: He thinks the country is okay — legitimate — when the people have the wisdom to elect Labor. But when they’re so foolish or malevolent as to elect Likud, all bets are off.

You’ve met this type, right? If you haven’t, or would like to, you can read the New York Times.

[………]

 

  It’s not very usual for a House member to be a vice-presidential nominee. William E. Miller was, in 1964. Later, there was an American Express ad, featuring him: “Do you know me?” I wonder how many did.

I will be interested to watch the career of Paul Ryan, that admirable man.

  I believe this about the election: that we gave it our best shot. That we “put it all on the field,” leaving “nothing in the locker room,” as Romney said. I think he was an excellent nominee. He made some mistakes — but anyone would. We worked hard. We had plenty of money. We offered a clear choice. Romney was a first-class alternative to Obama.

And the people said no. “Four more years!”

The thing is, in a democracy, the people decide. It’s their responsibility. They determine what kind of country we’ll be. All you can do is offer them an honest choice. They do the rest.

[………..]

Read the rest  – Bitterfest 2012

 

Tags:
Posted in Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Mitt Romney, Politics, Republican Party, Socialism | 314 Comments »

The Z-word

by Mojambo ( 147 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, History, Israel, Judaism, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Palestinians, Progressives at January 13th, 2012 - 2:00 pm

Jay Nordlinger writes a brilliant essay on how the term “Zionist” has become a pejorative one. People will not say they are anti-Israel because that would confirm Israel’s legitimacy as a state so they throw the “Z word” around so freely.  This should be recognized as an attempt to put the nation beyond the pale, to confirm its status as a pariah and an illegitimate nation.  Nordlinger suggests that the next time some one throws the “Z word” around, ask them what they mean by it.

 

Theodor Herzl (1860-1904)

by Jay Nordlinger

 A few weeks ago, a Labour MP in Britain, Paul Flynn, expressed displeasure with his country’s ambassador to Israel. “I do not normally fall for conspiracy theories,” he said, “but the ambassador has proclaimed himself to be a Zionist.” What Britain needs in Israel, according to Flynn, is “someone with roots in the U.K.” who “can’t be accused of having Jewish loyalty.”

Britain’s ambassador to Israel, as you may have surmised, is a Jew, the first to serve in that capacity. He previously served in Pakistan and Iran (not Jewish states). As for Matthew Gould’s “roots in the U.K.,” they may not be as deep as Flynn’s, but they are semi-respectable: On one side, his great-grandparents were immigrants, and on the other, his grandparents. Speaking of respectability, Gould is a graduate of St. Paul’s School and Peterhouse, Cambridge. Not bad for a Semitic upstart.

In his widely publicized remarks, Flynn worried about “neocons and warmongers,” now itching to invade Iran. “Warmongers” is a word we can easily understand. But what about two other words Flynn used, “neocons” and “Zionist”? These are very slippery terms. If you want to paralyze someone who denounces neocons, say, “What’s a neocon?” If you want to paralyze someone who denounces Zionists, or even refers to them, say, “What’s a Zionist?” People use these words cavalierly and ignorantly. And none too nicely, either.

[…….]

“Zion” may refer to a hill in Jerusalem, or a section of Jerusalem, or Jerusalem itself, or all Israel. Or to the kingdom of God, period. It also may refer to the Jewish people or to all mankind. People in Illinois may know Zion as a city on the Wisconsin border.

“Zionism” arose in the late 19th century, and its believers and supporters were “Zionists.” This was the movement to establish a Jewish state in ancient Israel — to “reestablish” that state, if you like. European Jews such as Theodor Herzl thought, or feared, that assimilation was a lost cause. The host countries would never allow it. The best answer was a return to Zion, to Israel. Other Jews held this return to be desirable in itself, regardless of whether assimilation in the broader world was possible.

Herzl wrote his pamphlet The Jewish State in 1896. The next year, he organized the first Zionist Congress, in Basel. Many Jews were Zionists, many were not. Those who were not, were free to stay where they were (as were those Jews who supported Zionism but did not wish to emigrate themselves). The ancient language, Hebrew, was revived. The movement gathered pace. After the Holocaust, and a war of independence, the Jews had their state. Zionism, i.e., Jewish nationalism, was fulfilled.

But the term hung on, particularly in the mouths of Israel’s enemies. Indeed, many Arabs would not, and will not, say “Israel.” They say “Zionist entity” or “Zionist presence.” To say “Israel,” apparently, would acknowledge statehood, which is unacknowledgeable, to some. The late Yasser Arafat was a frequent user of “Zionist aggressor,” “Zionist conquest,” and similar phrases.

One goal of Israel’s enemies was to stigmatize “Zionism,” and they had their greatest success in November 1975, when the United Nations passed its infamous Resolution 3379: Zionism equals racism. “Racism” was the severest term of the age, and it may well be that today, too. Vanessa Redgrave, a great supporter of Arafat and his PLO, said, “Zionism is a brutal, racist ideology.” Other peoples could have their national expression, but not the Jews. Resolution 3379 was revoked in 1991, thanks chiefly to the work of the Bush 41 administration, and in particular to the work of one State Department official: John Bolton.

Over the years, people have denounced Zionism while proclaiming their great love of Jews. They’re not anti-Jewish, you see, but merely anti-Zionist. They could just as well say “anti-Israel,” but “Zionist” is somehow the word of choice.

Accepting an Academy Award in 1978, Redgrave congratulated her colleagues on standing up to “Zionist hoodlums,” such as those picketing outside. Later in her remarks, she said, “I pledge to you that I will continue to fight against anti-Semitism and fascism.” In 1980, Jesse Jackson called Zionism “a kind of poisonous weed that is choking Judaism.” He was following the pattern of “Judaism good, Zionism bad.” In 1992, he seemed to have a change of heart, hailing Zionism as a “liberation movement.”

[…….]

Louis Farrakhan talks about Zionists almost as much as Arafat did. An Associated Press report in 1984 said, “Farrakhan, who has been quoted as calling Judaism a ‘gutter religion,’ denied that he was against Jews. He has said that remark referred to Zionism, not Judaism.” Here is an AP report from 1998: “Farrakhan suggested a Zionist plot was behind President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky.” Earlier this year, Farrakhan said that “Zionists dominate the government of the United States of America and her banking system.” He added, “Some of you think that I’m just somebody who’s got something out for the Jewish people. You’re stupid. Do you think I would waste my time if I did not think it was important for you to know Satan? My job is to pull the cover off of Satan so that he will never deceive you and the people of the world again.”

In Israel itself, the word “Zionist” is in bad odor, certainly on the left. Few academics, artists, and cool teens would want to be known as Zionists. This started “just after the 1967 war,” says Zev Chafets, the veteran American-Israeli writer. “Zionist” came to mean superpatriot, flag-waver, jingo. The worldwide Left associates Zionism with colonialism, imperialism, and, of course, racism, and the Israeli Left does the same.

[…….]

There are still people who embrace the Z-word, no matter the opprobrium that comes with it. Paul Flynn, the British MP, said that Ambassador Gould “has proclaimed himself to be a Zionist.” That is true. Gould has also said, “I thought long and hard about applying for the position” of ambassador to Israel. “I thought it might just be all too difficult. But then I thought to myself, ‘Why should Jews rule themselves out of important positions?’” Gould has emphasized he is “the British ambassador to Israel, not the Jewish one.”

Ten years ago, Gil Troy, a history professor at McGill University, wrote a book with a totally unabashed title: “Why I Am a Zionist: Israel, Jewish Identity and the Challenges of Today.” There are also many millions of Americans who support Israel and are known as “Christian Zionists.” Their critics utter this term with disdain or fear or both. I suspect that these Christians themselves have no problem with it.

To me, a Zionist has always been a person who supports the idea of a Jewish homeland, or state, in the Middle East. In ancient Israel. Therefore, being a Zionist is essentially the same as supporting the right of Israel to exist. When Farrakhan says that the U.S. government, the banks, and the media are “dominated by Zionists,” I’m apt to say, “Sure: Most Americans support Israel, both as idea and as reality.” But I am being too clever, no doubt — because when people say “Zionist,” they really mean . . .

Well, what do they mean? One clue comes from John J. Mearsheimer, the University of Chicago professor who, with Stephen M. Walt, wrote The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, a notorious book published in 2007. Mearsheimer has just written a blurb for a book by Gilad Atzmon, an ex-Israeli who hates Israel and hates himself, for that matter. He has described himself as a “proud self-hating Jew.” In his blurb, Mearsheimer writes, “Panicked Jewish leaders, [Atzmon] argues, have turned to Zionism (blind loyalty to Israel) and scaremongering (the threat of another Holocaust) to keep the tribe united and distinct from the surrounding goyim.”

So, there we have a definition of Zionism, from a professor of political science at one of our most distinguished universities: “blind loyalty to Israel.” There is an old joke, told by Jews, that goes, “What’s the definition of an anti-Semite? One who hates Jews more than is absolutely necessary.” Is that what a Zionist is — someone who supports Israel more than is absolutely necessary? Someone who is too enthusiastic or unyielding in his support?

In my observation, people say “Zionist” when they don’t want to say “Jew” or “Israeli.” As Gil Troy wrote last year, “intellectuals have camouflaged modern anti-Semitism as anti-Zionism.” There are certainly people who are anti-Zionist or anti-Israel — is there a difference? — without being anti-Jewish. Some of them are Jews. But, as Paul Johnson, the historian, once said to me in an interview, “Scratch the fellow who is anti-Israel, and you won’t have to dig very far before you find the anti-Semite within.” Another historian, Bernard Lewis, says that talk of Zionism “sometimes provides a useful cover”: a cover to those who harbor the old, enduring hatred.

As you go about life, you may encounter someone who says “Zionism” or “Zionist,” with an edge in his voice. Ask him what he means. The answer, or non-answer, you get is likely to be revealing.

Read the rest – The Z-word

Tags: ,
Posted in Anti-semitism, History, Israel, Judaism, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Palestinians, Progressives | 147 Comments »

Barack Obama ‘Leading from behind’; and Obama’s lack of class is a gift to the Republicans

by Mojambo ( 33 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Republican Party at April 26th, 2011 - 4:30 pm

“Leading from behind” is a perfect description of Obama’s foreign policy. A man who thinks that the United States is what ‘s been wrong with the world and is in love with “multilateralism” is more then happy to follow behind the French and the United Nations. As John Podhoretz has pointed out, the liberal New Yorker magazine has handed the Republicans a campaign slogan to describe America’s position in the world. This situation has so many similarities to the United States during the Carter years when we were a stumbling, helpless giant and our president told us that our best days were behind us. As Jennifer Rubin has written “Obama has relied throughout his career on a mix of glossy rhetoric and clever pop psychology” –  yet all the Madison Avenue public relations nonsense has given us is a world in flames.

by John Podhoretz

The reliably liberal New Yorker magazine isn’t usually in the habit of presenting gifts to the Republican Party, but it has just published three little words that may prove central to the GOP effort to defeat President Obama next year. Those words are “leading from behind,” and they appear at the end of a Ryan Lizza article on Obama’s foreign policy.

Lizza didn’t coin the phrase. “Leading from behind” is a direct quote from of “one of [Obama’s] advisers,” who is describing his boss’ policy on Libya. That same adviser goes on to say that the effort to lead from behind is “so at odds with the John Wayne expectation for what America is in the world. But it’s necessary for shepherding us through this phase.”

And there you have it: the 2012 campaign against Obama’s foreign policy in a nutshell. By the time Election Day rolls around, if the GOP knows what’s good for it, the phrase “leading from behind” will be the “yes, we can” of 2012.

The reason the phrase is so devastating is that “leading from behind” wasn’t intended as criticism but rather as a sympathetic, even proud, defense of the administration’s approach and goals.

[…]

It is something entirely different, and much more profoundly serious, for a presidency to be operating on the basis that the United States can only lead if it “leads from behind” because the country’s power is “declining” and because America “is reviled in many parts of the world.”

Is this something that the independent voters Obama will desperately need next year will be pleased to hear? One gets the sense that they are riven with anxiety about their future and the country’s future. This is not the sort of talk that will calm that anxiety.

Quite the opposite. It would, rather, seem custom-made to provoke anxiety about Obama’s leadership. In the first place, “leading from behind” makes no sense logically or grammatically, so it confuses before it enlightens. And then, once you figure it out, the problems really begin.

A nation’s declining power isn’t like the moon’s effect on the tide, caused by forces beyond our control. It is the result of actions, behaviors, ideas. If the White House truly believes the authority of the United States has suffered a decline, then its paramount responsibility is to reverse that decline.

[…]

Read the rest here: ‘Leading from behind’ could doom O

 

Jay Nordlinger points out the obvious – that the concept of civility to political opponents is most likely not in Obama’s dictionary, and if it is he does not understand its meaning.

by Jay Nordlinger

Remember when Al Gore referred to George W. Bush as “snippy”? (He was, too, or could be.) Well, our current president is very, very snippy. And somewhat mean. And bluntly partisan. You can see all this in his reaction to Republican budget plans and ideas.

He doesn’t say that those plans and ideas are merely misguided. “My friends on the other side are well-meaning. We all want to save the country from this mess we’re in. But they have it all wrong.” Obama never says anything like that. Instead, he says that Paul Ryan & Co. are dishonest, un-American, and out to starve your grandma.

Obama’s sheer lack of class could be a boon to Republicans in 2012. An obnoxious Obama will be easier to beat than a gracious Obama. Remember that guy? The one who gave the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention? Mr. One America? Strangely, he has not really been that as president.

And, again, Republicans are lucky. You can be likable, charming, and ecumenical, as you socialize the country. But Obama has been something else. In demeanor and rhetoric, he has been like a DNC chairman — Debbie Wasserman Schultz, at her feistiest.

Walk with me down Memory Lane for a second. In the 2000 general election campaign, Bush had a very, very bad first debate. He came on strong in the next two. But he floundered in the first one. It could have sunk his campaign. But Gore had behaved like such a jerk — rolling his eyes, sighing, etc. — all the post-debate attention was on that: Gore’s boorishness, not Bush’s stumbles.

That was lucky, for Bush and the Republicans. They — we — were also lucky in this: The two Democratic nominees who faced Bush, Gore and John Kerry, were two of the least likable men in public life (as I see it). And the first opponent got more votes than Bush; and the second came very close. What if those Democrats had been peaches?

[…]

Read the rest here: A boon to the Republicans

Tags: ,
Posted in Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Republican Party | 33 Comments »