[O]ne of the things that makes politics hard for rank-and-file voters in the United States is just how impossibly large this nation is. In a country of 300 millions, no matter what you do, it's often going to feel like it's a meaningless drop in the ocean. And given the legislative process, time passes between campaigning and enacting bills into law, and by many people have moved on to other parts of their lives. But individuals, and especially small groups of people, really can make a difference. This battle over health care reform is one time when it wasn't just the lobbyists, or the interest groups, or the politicians…whole bunches of small groups of people, in states and Congressional districts across the nation, turned a handful of Senate races and a dozen or two House races around and, sixteen or so months later, their work is, today, most likely going to change the country. If you're one of them, it's a day to be proud of what you've done.
Speakers at the AIPAC conference will undoubtedly defend the special relationship and warn Washington against putting pressure on Israel. But this short-sighted approach would be a disaster for all sides. In her scheduled address to the conference, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton should reaffirm the U.S. commitment to Israel's existence but make it crystal clear that Washington will no longer tolerate Israel's self-defeating policy on settlements. She should explain unambiguously that Israel faces a choice: It can end the occupation, embrace a genuine two-state solution, preserve its democratic and Jewish character and remain a cherished U.S. ally. Or it can continue the occupation of the West Bank and the siege of Gaza — a course that will eventually force it to abandon either its Jewish character or its democratic principles, and jeopardize its standing with its most important partner.
This weekend on the Dish we rounded up reaction to the historic passage of the damn bill. Andrew's take here. More analysis from Andrew Sprung here and here.
In assorted coverage, Fareed Zakaria compared Netanyahu to Cheney, Pareene pegged Politico, and bloggers listed their favorite books. Andrew defended his conservatism to TNC commenters and highlighted a great poem. Dave Munger considered the personhood of pets, Jason Kuznicki thought over ex-gays, and Julian Baggini explained why the most sanctimonious people are often the worst among us. Get your Jonah Lehrer fix here and here. Cool ad here and creepy one here.
In case you missed this: testifying before Congress on DADT, retired US general John Sheehan raised eyebrows with the following exchange:
SHEEHAN: The case in point that I’m referring to was when the Dutch were required to defend Sbrenecia against the Serbs, the battalion was understrength, poorly led. And the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone polls, marched the Muslims off and executed them. That was the largest massacre in Europe since World War II.
LEVIN: And did the Dutch leaders tell you it was because there were gay soldiers there?
"It is astonishing that a man of his stature can utter such complete nonsense," Dutch defence ministry spokesman Roger van de Wetering said in response. "The Srebrenica massacre and the involvement of UN soldiers was extensively investigated by the Netherlands, international organisations and the United Nations. Never was there in any way concluded that the sexual orientation of soldiers played a role."
"For most of the 20th century people fled the ghosts of communist dictators. And now you are bringing the ghosts back into this chamber," – Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), during last night's health care vote.
In the Islamic Republic of Iran, sex outside of marriage is a crime, punishable by up to 100 lashes or, in the case of adultery, death by stoning. Yet the purpose of a temporary marriage is clear from its name in Arabic—mut'a, pleasure. A man and a woman may contract a mut'a for a finite period of time—from minutes to 99 years or more—and for a specific amount, mehr in Farsi, which the man owes the woman.
In your piece you assert that Pastor John Hagee is an “anti-Catholic fundamentalist bigot.” Your comment is no doubt fueled by a past controversy in which certain statements made by Pastor Hagee were mistakenly thought to have been referencing –and thus offensive to– the Catholic Church.
Although few papers covered it at the time, Pastor Hagee repeatedly clarified that all of his references in question were not to the Catholic Church, but to an entity referenced in the Book of Revelation that Pastor Hagee believes will come into being at the End of Days. Since this entity does not currently exist, there is no way it could be the Catholic Church. As you no doubt know, papers are often very good at reporting the mistake, less so at reporting the correction.
In addition, following the controversy in question, an exchange of letters between Pastor Hagee and Catholic League President Bill Donohue included the following comment from Donohue: “The tone of Hagee’s letter is sincere. He wants reconciliation and he has achieved it.” Donohue went on to say “Now Catholics, along with Jews, can work with Pastor Hagee in making interfaith relations stronger than ever. Whatever problems we had before are now history. This case is closed.”
Having closed the matter with the Catholic League, I know Pastor Hagee would hope that individuals from the Catholic community (yourself included) would look towards building a more constructive, inter-faith relationship, rather than deepening any Protestant-Catholic rifts.
Equally as unfortunate is your offensive mischaracterization of Evangelical-Christian theology as it pertains to Israel. You write “The evangelicals see permanent Israeli colonization of the West Bank as critical to End-times theology.” Minimal research into the subject would have shown you that this assertion is patently untrue. As I noted recently in a letter to the editor of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA):
Just as portions of the Tanakh and the Talmud discuss Jewish eschatology (‘end times’ theology), so do portions of the Christian Bible. However, Christian Zionism is no more motivated by Christian eschatology than Jewish Zionism is by Jewish eschatology.
The two faiths share a belief that the ‘end times’ and the coming of the Messiah will be centered on events in Israel. The primary differences between the two faiths are first, of course, that Christians believe it will be the Messiah’s second coming and Jews believe it will be His first. More importantly, while many Jews believe that there are certain things the Jewish people can do to hasten the coming of the Messiah, pre-millennial dispensationalist Christians (such as Pastor John Hagee and the majority of Christian Zionists) believe that the return of the Messiah is on a fixed, divine timetable that they are powerless to change. So while followers of this interpretation of Christian eschatology may see — as do many Jews — the rise of the modern State of Israel as Biblically prophesized, they do not believe the actions of any human can hasten the ‘end of days.’
To assert that Christian Zionism is driven by Christian eschatology is factually incorrect, theologically impossible, and deeply offensive to millions of Christians who know exactly why they stand with Israel. There are a variety of political, religious and historical motivations for Christian Zionism. As Eric Fingerhut noted in a JTA blog post discussing this subject: “As for the allegation that Christian support for Israel is all part of an eschatology having to do with the Second Coming, I've talked to enough Christian Zionists over the past few years to believe that for the vast majority of them, their support for the Jewish state is genuinely motivated by Genesis's admonition that God will bless those who bless the Jewish people, as well as their respect for Judaism as a foundation for Christianity or even their general beliefs about U.S. foreign policy.”
The Biblical foundation for Christian support for Israel is rooted in the promises of Genesis not the prophecies of Revelation.
You also assert that this theology drives Christian Zionist investment in West Bank “colonization.” By including this assertion in a piece about Pastor Hagee you incorrectly imply that his organizations are “helping fund [West Bank ‘colonization’] with millions.” Again, just the bare minimum of due diligence would have disabused you of this false opinion. Also from the aforementioned letter to the JTA:
1. The vast majority of the money that [John Hagee Ministries] gives to Israel stays within the pre-1967 green line. In 2009, for example, donations to entities in the West Bank comprised less than five percent of the $9 million JHM gave to Israeli causes.
2. What little money was given over the green line was given to those communities that almost all observers recognize will remain a part of Israel in any negotiated two-state compromise.
3. The funds given to these communities went to support social services such as schools, hospitals or youth/sports oriented facilities.
You conclude your piece by noting your fear that if your opinions are not heeded “Israel will be as polluted by the fumes of Christianism as the GOP.” I would wager that if in that sentence you replaced Christians with some other religious group, your editors would have been horrified at such a broad faith-based attack. Odd that just a few short paragraphs earlier you had accused Pastor Hagee of bigotry, and then sought fit to display a bit of your own.
Unfortunately your piece betrays a fundamental ignorance of both the theology and practices of Christian Zionists. I would welcome the opportunity to have a face-to-face dialogue with you in an effort to address your concerns. Hopefully, learning the truth about Christian supporters of Israel might enable you to let go of some of the false Christian Zionist stereotypes you seem to hold and start making distinctions among Christian Zionists as you do with Jewish Zionists.
Let me offer a ludicrously premature opinion: Barack Obama has sealed his reputation as a president of great historical import. We don’t know what will follow in his presidency, and it’s quite possible that some future event–a war, a scandal–will define his presidency. But we do know that he has put his imprint on the structure of American government in a way that no Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson has.
If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.
I have been trying to explain to my youngest why this is such an exciting moment: front line soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq take personal risks, put their lives on the line. But so few politicians put their careers on the line, even though they make decisions that have an impact on soldiers. President Obama (and to some degree every Democrat who supports this bill) is putting his political career on the line. The idea that you might do what you think is right and pay a penalty has been so foreign to politics that it surprises us when we see it. I think my son is surprised to hear all this. He assumes at 12 years of age that people, especially people we elect, go to Washington to do the right thing.
What I hope is that the Democrats take a beating at the ballot box and rethink their contempt for those mouth-breathing illiterates in the electorate. I hope Obama gets his wish to be a one-term president who passed health care. Not because I think I will like his opponent–I very much doubt that I will support much of anything Obama’s opponent says. But because politicians shouldn’t feel that the best route to electoral success is to lie to the voters, and then ignore them.
I don’t think anyone will hold up the bill that will pass as exemplary, but it does reflect elements of health care reform that Democrats campaigned on and won on in 2008. So I have a hard time seeing this as doing violence to the will of the people as it is typically expressed in our electoral system. Elections matter. This is how they matter.
Do not believe anyone who tells you they understand the path American politics will take after this vote. It is truly unique. And yet a few things are clear. One, the idea of the “pro-life” Democrat should be tossed into the dust-heap along with such outmoded concepts as cold-fusion. Two, Obama will achieve a short-term bump in his political capital, and likely his poll ratings, because he will have achieved something that every Democratic president since Harry Truman has been unable to accomplish. And three, Obamacare is a testable proposition. The proponents of this legislation have made distinct claims regarding its costs and consequences that should not be forgotten — especially when America encounters its first debt crisis some years from now.
The oddest thing about the health care debate, at least in my view, is that Republicans basically did not engage on the actual substance of the bill. Lots of stuff about death panels, and lots of stuff about procedure, lots of stuff about backroom deals (most of which will be gone after reconciliation) but shockingly little about the individual mandate — or, as Tim Noah points out, about the actual taxes that really are being raised for this. The only real substantive complaint they highlighted was Medicare, where they argued against their own position.
Democrats are going to stress the parts of the bill that kick in immediately, including small business tax cuts, closing the Medicare donut hole, allowing adult children up to the age of 26 to stay on their parents’ health care plans, insurance industry reforms (ending recissions), free preventative, and temporary coverage for early retirees, among others.
Large-scale change naturally provokes anxiety, uncertainty, fear and resistance, which is inevitable and as it should be. It does not follow that the later backlash against large-scale change will be great enough to undo the change. The Medicare prescription drug benefit was not passed by large margins in the House, and its eventual passage was the product of some significant arm-twisting, maneuvering and vote-buying. It was also unfunded and therefore incredibly fiscally irresponsible! It was phenomenally bad policy! That doesn’t mean that there has been a groundswell of outraged voters ready to support its repeal. As far as I know, no one on the mainstream right, least of all the editor of the magazine that once championed big-government conservatism, has even proposed repealing it. After all, it is their monstrosity. It has become part of the structure of our unsustainable, disastrous entitlement system, and no politician with any self-preservation instinct would so much as suggest eliminating a benefit that millions of likely voters enjoy receiving.
The Democrats won that battle because they said to themselves and the country: on this ground we’re willing to lose. And in addition to all the hard work and everything else in their favor, that commitment stiffened their spines and made them credible to the public at large. It made the political victory possible.
A genuine willingness to lose means just that: you might lose. You might lose big. And the dynamics of a mid-term election, amidst crippling unemployment and an energized right, have certain unavoidable implications. But I suspect the effect for the Democrats of actual passing this legislation will be considerably more positive than people realize.
I’ve been saying for many months that if healthcare reform passes, I believe that Obama, for all of his myriad flaws, will be the best President of my lifetime and one of the ten best in the nation’s history.
To a significant extent, Ms Pelosi is viewed negatively because Americans think of her as a loser. This impression is understandable when you look at the way mainstream media have covered this Congress, but it’s utterly misplaced. She has presided over one of the most effective sessions in the history of the House [and she has] emerged the victor in the bloodiest battle America’s legislature has seen since the impeachment of Bill Clinton, if not longer. Maybe people (Democrats, at least) will finally start giving her the credit she deserves.
Now that it’s done, Barack Obama will go down in history as one of America’s finest presidents. It’s always possible of course that, like LBJ, he’ll get involved in some unrelated fiasco that mars his reputation. But fundamentally, he’s reshaped the policy landscape in a way that no progressive politician has done in decades.
Make no mistake: the more virulent GOP opposition to the plans became – and, if you like, the more hysterical – the more Democrats had to pass it if only to save face. Sceptical Blue Dogs, Pro-Lifers and Leftists were all forced to club together for the greater good of the party. Left to their own devices they almost certainly couldn’t have agreed on a bill, any bill.
In the end, perhaps the greatest thing going for this bill is the possibility that it will open future avenues for better reforms down the road. That is not a very compelling argument, of course, but who knows? It may in fact be the most important argument of them all. The future will demand reform, and we may as well begin the process.
(Image: Lights are on at the US Capitol as the House of Representatives works during a rare Sunday session on March 21, 2010 in Washington, DC. By Mark Wilson/Getty Images.)
Andrew Sprung sees how it was the way this was done as much as the fact that it was done that will linger – to Obama's advantage:
The flip side of Obama's perhaps naive belief that he can win Republicans over is his ability to show them up. Americans are confused about the plan, but they are not confused about the man. By large margins they trust Obama more than they do the Republicans to produce rational solutions to the country's problems. In the past month, he exploited his mastery of policy detail, his pragmatism, his focus on effectively alleviating the suffering he spotlighted, and his willingness to stake his political future on getting this bill passed to the utmost. The full eloquence and passion of the campaign came back to his lips in forum after forum and speech after speech.
To Democratic legislators, his message was that this bill epitomized why they had sought public office and why they were Democrats; it was the raison d'etre for their careers; in effect, passing it was worth their
careers (and would make or break his own).
In the bipartisan summit, he framed a core contrast: the Democrats would rein in the health insurers' worst practices; the Republicans would further enable them by weakening existing regulations. In rallies, he emphasized human suffering caused by leaving people uninsured and underinsured and enumerated the bill's benefits for ordinary people. As noted before, too, he presented the effort as a litmus test as to whether the Federal government was capable of taking meaningful action to solve national problems. He moved the needle of public opinion enough to move enough House Democrats to "yes."
The process may have been frustrating, and long, and ugly, as Obama told the crowd at George Mason on Friday. But it was also glorious.
The Dish 