Commentary Magazine


Dream of Rivals: Why Bibi’s Still On Top

Two terrorist attacks today in Israel have already claimed one life–that of a young woman–and left a soldier in critical condition, in addition to the others less seriously wounded in the attacks. The incidents extend the spasm of violence by Palestinians who have flirted with igniting a full-blown intifada, though the security fence and other precautions have thus far prevented a comparable terror campaign. They also put the spotlight on the Israeli leadership, highlighting an interesting political phenomenon.

Read More

Two terrorist attacks today in Israel have already claimed one life–that of a young woman–and left a soldier in critical condition, in addition to the others less seriously wounded in the attacks. The incidents extend the spasm of violence by Palestinians who have flirted with igniting a full-blown intifada, though the security fence and other precautions have thus far prevented a comparable terror campaign. They also put the spotlight on the Israeli leadership, highlighting an interesting political phenomenon.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has studiously, if not always successfully, attempted to avoid scenarios that could be destabilizing to Israeli politics, knowing as he does that governing coalitions are almost always more fragile than they look and that one perceived failure could bring them down. The Palestinians have, of course, not always played along. Case in point: Netanyahu is far more hesitant to go to war than most of his predecessors; this past summer, Hamas made avoiding a ground war impossible.

Netanyahu’s government survived the Gaza war, and now must deal with terror from within–a far greater challenge than calling on the IDF to win a ground war in Palestinian territory. Additionally, Netanyahu continues to deal with fluctuating Israeli public opinion polls and the fact that in the new reality of Israel’s fragmented party politics, rival parties are seemingly perpetually in striking distance. On top of all this, Netanyahu tends to get under the skin of even those who would agree with him politically, and has no natural ideological base since he’s much more of a pragmatist than an ideologue.

So why is Netanyahu still standing, and why do the latest Knesset polls show him in the lead once again if new elections were to be held? There are two answers. The first is the underappreciated maturity of Israeli democracy. Bibi may not be well liked personally, and the political scene may feature a constant casting-about for alternatives, but in the end Israeli voters are still keeping their priorities straight by refusing to turn national elections into pure popularity contests.

Security crises often turn into political crises. But the prevalence of security concerns and the failure of the Palestinians to produce a serious peace partner have kept the Israeli electorate fairly steady. Having oriented their national government with security concerns in mind, a desire for a reorientation isn’t likely to produce one: to whom would they turn?

That question leads to the second reason for the Netanyahu government’s relative stability. The Israeli electorate has, as I’ve written in the past, achieved a kind of ideological equilibrium–and it’s one that leaves the left mostly out of the loop. Once upon a time, when the Israeli left was viewed as less naïve and fanciful than its current iteration (Ehud Barak was, after all, leader of the Labor Party just four years ago, though the marriage was by then an unhappy one), you could imagine a swing of the pendulum from right to left and back again in Knesset elections. That’s not the case today.

So where would the pendulum swing, then? In the Times of Israel, editor David Horovitz writes that for those who have really had it with Bibi, desperate times are calling for desperate measures:

So who is this alternative to Netanyahu, considered by at least some in the middle ground of Israeli politics?

Step forward Avigdor Liberman, Israel’s minister of foreign affairs and the head of the Yisrael Beytenu coalition faction.

Horovitz notes, with record-obliterating understatement, that Lieberman (whose surname is often transliterated in Israel without the first “e”) “is not a man usually highlighted as the embodiment of Israeli political moderation.” No kidding. He continues:

And yet there are those among the coalition’s unhappy centrists who see Liberman as a pragmatist — at least relative to Netanyahu; as someone who would initiate policy rather than defensively respond, as Netanyahu is deemed by his critics to do; and as the possible key piece of a future coalition jigsaw built around Yesh Atid (19 seats), Labor (15), Hatnua (6) and Kadima (2).

As a consequence of various comings and goings in what was the joint Likud-Yisrael Beytenu slate in the 2013 elections, Liberman’s party now holds 13 seats in the Knesset. If you add in Meretz (six seats), and/or one or both of the ultra-Orthodox parties (Shas with its 11 seats, and United Torah Judaism 7), the arithmetic starts to look interesting.

OK, I’ll take the bait. I did, after all, write an essay in COMMENTARY three summers ago explaining how the Knesset math made Lieberman a force to be reckoned with and a perennial kingmaker with his eye on the ultimate prize. But what do the numbers say? Here’s the latest Knesset Channel poll. It finds Likud with 22 seats (up from 19), Naftali Bennett’s Habayit Hayehudi with 18 (up from 12), Labor at 15, Yesh Atid at nine, Meretz at nine, and Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu at … seven seats.

An outlier? Does not appear to be. More like a trend. Here’s the NRG poll from six days earlier. It found Likud with 21, Bennett with 17, Labor with 15, and Yesh Atid and Yisrael Beiteinu with nine each.

That raises a different question: Is Netanyahu vulnerable from within Likud? The answer there seems to be no as well. Had there been a real chance to unseat Netanyahu as Likud leader, current Israeli President Ruby Rivlin would have been more likely to stay and challenge Bibi. The presidency is a ceremonial role. The premiership is where the power is. And don’t forget that Lieberman himself recently split from Likud.

The palace intrigue in Jerusalem has become noticeably unintriguing of late. That’s because the Israeli electorate has more or less arranged their Knesset representation to manage a status quo that hasn’t changed much either. Bibi is always instinctively looking over his shoulder. But it’s doubtful that when he does, he sees Avigdor Lieberman.

Read Less

What Has the Guardian Got Against Jews?

The Guardian is well known for its slanted reporting on Israel and has done much to earn its position as Britain’s anti-Zionist paper of choice. Yet quite often one gets the impression that the Guardian’s problem with the Jewish state may actually extend to being more of a problem with Jews in general. Take the reaction to Julie Burchill’s latest book Unchosen: the memoirs of a philosemite. In response to Burchill’s love letter to the Jews the Guardian has hit back with not one, but two hatchet jobs ripping Burchill, her book, and her philosemitism to pieces. But eventually one has to ask: if this newspaper has such a problem with those who have anything nice to say about Jews, then what does the Guardian really think about Jews themselves?

Read More

The Guardian is well known for its slanted reporting on Israel and has done much to earn its position as Britain’s anti-Zionist paper of choice. Yet quite often one gets the impression that the Guardian’s problem with the Jewish state may actually extend to being more of a problem with Jews in general. Take the reaction to Julie Burchill’s latest book Unchosen: the memoirs of a philosemite. In response to Burchill’s love letter to the Jews the Guardian has hit back with not one, but two hatchet jobs ripping Burchill, her book, and her philosemitism to pieces. But eventually one has to ask: if this newspaper has such a problem with those who have anything nice to say about Jews, then what does the Guardian really think about Jews themselves?

The Guardian now has this sort of thing down to an art, and so of course both pieces are written by Jews: Hadley Freeman and Will Self. Although in his case Self would prefer that we say ex-Jew; apparently he finds Jewishness so distasteful that he claims to have renounced his. This barely noticed abdication took place back in 2006 in protest at events surrounding Israel’s Second Lebanon War. Israel’s critics endlessly insist their antipathy toward the country has nothing to do with it being Jewish, and yet almost as often we have characters like Self and Shlomo Sand affirming Israel’s Jewishness and more to the point adding that they find the place so abhorrent that they can’t bear to remain Jews any longer.

Fitting then that the Guardian had Self review Burchill’s book alongside Sand’s How I Stopped Being a Jew. And just as Sand is held up as infinitely wise for having recognized the error of having been born a Jew, so Burchill is castigated for her error of having professed her love for Jews. Self asserts that he won’t dignify Burchill’s latest work with the description “book,” instead labeling it simply a “Jewalogue.” But then purportedly taken with concern for the welfare of the very people he couldn’t stand being part of, Self accuses Burchill of actually assisting anti-Semites through her “exaltation of specific – and implicitly genetic – Jewish characteristics.”

In case Self’s indictment wasn’t sufficient, the Guardian also published Hadley Freeman’s excruciating piece, “God Save us from the Philosemitism of Burchill, Amis and Mensch.” As well as packing her article with all the predictable eyeroll-inducing Jewish kitsch that Burchill herself has no time for, Freeman includes the accusation that philosemites and anti-Semites view the world in essentially the same way. As she puts it, “The gap between a philosemite and an antisemite is more narrow than a slice of matza because they both treat Jews as something not quite human, as something Other.”

Of course the queen of the “Philosemites are all anti-Semites in disguise” accusation is the academic and Jewish critic of Israel, Anne Karpf. (You may be noticing a pattern here.) In 2010 Karpf questioned the philosemitism of Burchill and former education minister Michael Gove, writing: “Burchill’s philo-Semitism is a form of anti-Semitism, I’d suggest, because it bunches all Jews together, as though we were a single, uniform entity. The idea that all Jews are wonderful is little different from all Jews being hateful.”

Yet, paradoxically, several of Burchill’s critics also make a contradictory accusation. Not that Burchill lumps all Jews together as faultless, but rather that she has the temerity to distinguish between those Jews she likes and those she doesn’t. The judeophobe! That’s the claim in the review by her ex-husband, also Jewish, naturally. Actually, Hadley Freeman even makes both of these contradictory accusations simultaneously. But then these are the kind of inconsistencies that creep in when people are being disingenuous.

Burchill’s detractors are forced to come up with these contradictory and frankly unconvincing objections to her philosemitism because they can’t very well give the real reason they find her affections so intolerable; that they can’t bear philosemites gushing about Jews because, quite simply, they don’t think Jews are worthy of such praise. They believe that good Jews should be self-flagellating and ashamed, just like all the Jews brought in to write these attacks on Julie Burchill. Semites and philosemites: if you can’t stand one, you’re hardly going to be crazy about the other.

For the Guardian none of this is anything new. Just read Melanie Phillips’s memoir Guardian Angel. In it she describes how during the 1982 Lebanon war, long before she had ever visited or championed Israel, she was essentially turned into the Guardian’s resident Jew, with one colleague abruptly asking “Well now Melanie, what on earth are we going to say about your war?” Worse still, Phillips describes how when she questioned the paper’s double standard on Israel, her liberal colleagues informed her Israel should indeed be held to a higher standard since “you Jews” claim to be morally superior.

Anne Karpf claims we live in “postmodern times where some of what looks like anti-Semitism isn’t, but, conversely, some of what doesn’t look like anti-Semitism in fact is.” They can twist Julie Burchill all they like, she’s no anti-Semite. Quite the opposite. And that’s what the Guardian really can’t stand.

Read Less

ObamaCare: Live by a Typo. Die By It.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman thinks it’s outrageous. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear King v. Burwell, the case in which the state of Oklahoma, joined by numerous other groups, challenged the constitutionality of the government’s interpretation of the Affordable Care Act, puts, as our John Steele Gordon noted yesterday, the entire future of the ObamaCare apparatus in jeopardy. Krugman’s point in his latest column is that the case rests on what he refers to as a “typo”—the fact that the text of the ACA said that the federal subsidies that prop up the scheme could only go to state-run exchanges and not to federal marketplaces set up to accommodate those who live in states that did not create such exchanges. But for those who remember the technicality invented by Chief Justice John Roberts to ensure that ObamaCare survived a much more substantive constitutional challenge, the answer is clear: live by a typo, die by it as well.

Read More

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman thinks it’s outrageous. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear King v. Burwell, the case in which the state of Oklahoma, joined by numerous other groups, challenged the constitutionality of the government’s interpretation of the Affordable Care Act, puts, as our John Steele Gordon noted yesterday, the entire future of the ObamaCare apparatus in jeopardy. Krugman’s point in his latest column is that the case rests on what he refers to as a “typo”—the fact that the text of the ACA said that the federal subsidies that prop up the scheme could only go to state-run exchanges and not to federal marketplaces set up to accommodate those who live in states that did not create such exchanges. But for those who remember the technicality invented by Chief Justice John Roberts to ensure that ObamaCare survived a much more substantive constitutional challenge, the answer is clear: live by a typo, die by it as well.

Let’s specify up front that Krugman isn’t entirely wrong that the substance of this case rests entirely on a technicality. As I noted in October when a federal court in Oklahoma ruled against the ACA on this issue, the anomaly by which the law granted subsidies only for state exchanges was not necessarily intended by those who drafted the law although there was some dispute about funding for the subsidies. But the Democratic majorities that crammed this legal monstrosity through both houses of Congress were not that interested in its content. As then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said, the law had to be passed before anyone would know what was in it.

The idea that it could be scuttled by a drafting error strikes Krugman as a terrible injustice that would not be permitted if sensible people were staffing the judiciary. He likens the prospect of ObamaCare’s destruction on such a seemingly minor point to the discovery of a mistake made in the filing of the deed of his parent’s home which might have left his mother’s garden outside of their property. But there are two points that serve to render his complaint both hypocritical as well as insubstantial.

The first is that the ACA was judged to be constitutional on a technicality that was far more bogus than the one about state and federal exchange subsidies. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the constitutionality of the law on a narrow 5-4 vote. But the deciding fifth vote cast by Chief Justice Roberts was based on his belief that the entire thing could be construed as a tax and that this allowed the federal government to act in this manner. The other eight justices had divided evenly on the question that both the plaintiffs and those defending the government had thought was at issue: whether ObamaCare was an unconstitutional breach of the Commerce Clause that would have unlawfully forced citizens to engage in commerce. Roberts agreed with the four other conservative judges that the challenge to its constitutionality on this point was valid but concocted the tax argument in order to keep the high court out of an issue that he appears to believe should only be decided by Congress and the voters.

At the time, conservatives howled at the absurd nature of Roberts’s argument that allowed a blatantly unconstitutional piece of legislation to survive. In response, liberals merely crowed at their victory and reminded their opponents to respect the rule of law whether they liked the outcome or not.

Two years later, it appears the shoe is on the other foot and all of a sudden liberals like Krugman no longer think it’s right for laws to be narrowly decided in an arbitrary manner that hangs on legal technicalities or bizarre interpretations of the law. But there is more here at play than turnabout being fair play.

Krugman falsely argues that the law is working well, something that is given the lie by the fact that much of its substance has been delayed until next year so as to give Democrats a better chance in the midterms as well as its rollout. Contrary to the president’s false promises, Americans were not allowed to keep their insurance or their doctors, if they liked. The increases that many will suffer next year, as well as the potentially devastating impact on employment, once the individual mandate begins to be enforced also destroys his premise. But even if we accept that some will lose benefits they have been given under the law, that shouldn’t motivate the court to ignore the contradiction in the text.

At the heart of the current case is a question of what it means to pass a law. Laws are not merely amorphous notions but actual documents that must be drafted carefully lest some odd anomaly in their language allow governments to exploit the citizens or individuals to profit unfairly. If the text doesn’t actually matter, then the government may interpret them in any way it likes to the detriment of the rights of all Americans.

Seen in that light, Krugman’s railing at the “typo” and the “corruption” involved in this case that should—if Roberts doesn’t invent some even more absurd rationale to save ObamaCare again—destroy the president’s principal legislative achievement doesn’t seem so reasonable. At stake here is not just the future of health care or a president’s legacy, but also the rule of law.

Without the rule of law, there is no individual liberty or democracy. It is on that ground, if nothing else, that the Supreme Court should rule against the government. If it doesn’t, the corruption will not so much be liberal hypocrisy but their agenda that seeks to trash this basic principle of accountability.

Read Less

Obama Can’t Ignore Iran’s Hostility

The Obama administration had been telling us that it might be just weeks away from signing a deal with Iran regarding the regime’s illegal nuclear program. Yet we also have reports that Iran may have already breached the interim deal it signed by employing a faster means of uranium enrichment. Then came last week’s revelation from the Wall Street Journal of Obama’s clandestine letter to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei regarding the campaign against ISIS in Iraq. It is hard to believe that at a time when Iran’s brazen untrustworthiness is being put beyond doubt, the Obama administration is seeking to both reach an accommodation with Tehran on its nuclear program and to even pursue some kind of further military coordination. And all of this ignores the fact that the regime remains one of the most expressedly anti-American in the world.

Read More

The Obama administration had been telling us that it might be just weeks away from signing a deal with Iran regarding the regime’s illegal nuclear program. Yet we also have reports that Iran may have already breached the interim deal it signed by employing a faster means of uranium enrichment. Then came last week’s revelation from the Wall Street Journal of Obama’s clandestine letter to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei regarding the campaign against ISIS in Iraq. It is hard to believe that at a time when Iran’s brazen untrustworthiness is being put beyond doubt, the Obama administration is seeking to both reach an accommodation with Tehran on its nuclear program and to even pursue some kind of further military coordination. And all of this ignores the fact that the regime remains one of the most expressedly anti-American in the world.

Jonathan Tobin has already pointed out the disingenuousness of Obama’s rhetoric on Iran as compared to the actual policy of detente that the White House has been pursuing. Equally, Michael Rubin has noted the folly of Obama’s overtures to the mullahs when Khamenei’s own rhetoric is so absurdly hostile to the United States. But, of course, Iran’s implicit hostility to America goes far beyond the statements of the supreme leader; the regime continues to engineer an entire culture of anti-American hate into which the Iranian public is indoctrinated. Michael Rubin drew readers’ attention to some of the fiercely anti-American statements made by Khamenei during the 2009 celebrations marking the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. But if we look to the same commemorations held just days ago, we see that the regime’s anti-American incitement has in fact only intensified.

Tuesday’s rally in Tehran marking the 35th anniversary of the storming of the embassy was reportedly far larger than in previous years, with some 3,000 in attendance burning the American, British, and Israeli flags, howling death to America at the top of their voices, as is customary. This year the anniversary had actually coincided with the Shia holy-day of Ashura, and so this presented the opportunity for similar such gatherings–also replete with anti-American placards and flag burning—to be held throughout several other Iranian cities.

It would of course be ridiculous to label these displays as the spontaneous outpourings that the regime would have us believe they are. In a society as tightly controlled as the one in Iran, no such public gatherings take place without the endorsement of the state. It is however true that the state-controlled media in the Islamic Republic provides the population with a stale diet of around-the-clock anti-American propaganda. Indeed, it was only back in February that Iranian television was broadcasting a simulation of attacks on U.S. military targets.

Still, given the incredibly delicate situation with the current negotiations, one might have assumed that the Iranians would have at least attempted to keep these demonstrations more low key. Yet, it is a sign of just how little respect the mullahs have for Obama—and how little they fear the United States—that far from playing down the 1979 embassy storming, in many ways they have been flaunting it. Earlier this year when it came time for Iran to select a new ambassador to the United Nations, Rouhani’s government chose none other than Hamid Aboutalebi, himself one of the former embassy hostage takers. This was a clear finger in the American eye and a sign of Iran’s completely unrepentant attitude over such past offenses.

The truth is that along with North Korea and Cuba, Iran remains one of the most profoundly anti-American countries in the world today. And yet the Obama administration appears poised to sign a treaty with the Islamic Republic. That is what an agreement on the Iranian nuclear program would be, although of course the White House will attempt to deny that the agreement is a treaty in an effort to avoid having to run it past Congress. No doubt Obama and Kerry are well aware that there are many there who will not share the administration’s enthusiasm for signing a treaty with a regime that is in every sense a fierce enemy of the United States. And yet having discarded all the other options, Obama seems to determined to push on and do just that.

Read Less

Obama’s Wrong: Iran’s Already Cheating

When he met with the press last Wednesday, President Obama gave a vote of confidence to his Iranian negotiating partners as having upheld their end of the interim nuclear deal they signed with the U.S. last year. But as much as the revelations about the president’s secret correspondence with Iran’s supreme leader that were published in the Wall Street Journal on Friday undermined the credibility of his promises about his willingness to get tough with the Islamist regime, it turns out that his assurances about Iranian compliance were also untrue. As Reuters reports, there is now good reason to believe that the Iranians have already violated the deal.

Read More

When he met with the press last Wednesday, President Obama gave a vote of confidence to his Iranian negotiating partners as having upheld their end of the interim nuclear deal they signed with the U.S. last year. But as much as the revelations about the president’s secret correspondence with Iran’s supreme leader that were published in the Wall Street Journal on Friday undermined the credibility of his promises about his willingness to get tough with the Islamist regime, it turns out that his assurances about Iranian compliance were also untrue. As Reuters reports, there is now good reason to believe that the Iranians have already violated the deal.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, while U.S. diplomats have spent 2014 offering even more concessions to Iran, the ones Tehran pocketed last year are already worthless:

Western officials were not immediately available to comment on the allegation by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), which closely tracks Iran’s nuclear program. There was no immediate comment from Tehran. ISIS, whose founder David Albright often briefs U.S. lawmakers and others on nuclear proliferation issues, cited a finding in a new report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about Iran. The confidential document, issued to IAEA member states on Friday, said that since the U.N. agency’s previous report in September, Iran had “intermittently” been feeding natural uranium gas into a single so-called IR-5 centrifuge at a research facility.

The IR-5 is one of several new models that Iran has been seeking to develop to replace the erratic, 1970s vintage IR-1 centrifuge that it now uses to produce refined uranium. Unlike other advanced models under development — IR-2m, IR-4 and IR-6 — at a research site at its Natanz enrichment plant, Iran had until now not fed the IR-5 with uranium gas.

“Iran may have violated (the interim accord) by starting to feed (natural uranium gas) into one of its advanced centrifuges, namely the IR-5 centrifuge,” ISIS said in an analysis.

This is significant for two reasons.

The first is that this piece of information uncovered by the IAEA shows that Iran is actively working to circumvent the already loose restrictions on uranium enrichment that were part of the interim deal. Even had Iran kept their word, it wouldn’t have taken much for the Iranians to reverse the measures that rendered their stockpile of nuclear fuel harmless. But if even the IAEA, whose efforts to monitor the Iranian nuclear program have been stymied by Iranian obstructionism, has been able to discover this deception, it’s clear the regime has been working all out to get around even the loose restrictions imposed by the interim deal.

It is true that, as Reuters also reports, advocates of appeasement of Iran are arguing that none of this constitutes a technical violation of the agreement. But their arguments sound like hair splitting. Whether or not Iran has introduced a new kind of centrifuge, it’s obvious that the effort noted by the IAEA is seeking a way around the rules and may well have already found it. The interim deal gave tacit recognition to an Iranian “right” to enrichment that had already been denied by an international consensus that realized Tehran’s goal was to build a nuclear weapon, not provide for their “peaceful energy needs.”

Just as important is that the Iranian effort to get around the interim deal explodes not only the president’s assurances but also calls into question the entire negotiating process. If the Islamist regime can violate the weak interim deal, which only sought ineffectively to freeze the dangerous nuclear program in place, how can anyone possibly expect a new and more far-reaching agreement to be credible, let alone adequately enforced?

We already know that the administration’s zeal for a deal caused it to discard the considerable economic and military leverage it had over Iran before the interim deal began the process of unraveling the international sanctions. Despite the president’s tough rhetoric, the Iranians believe his desire to create a new détente with their despotic, terror-sponsoring government—what Deputy National Security Director Ben Rhodes called the ObamaCare of the president’s second term—has put them in a strong negotiating position. That’s why they’ve spent this year demanding more concessions from the West without fear that the U.S. will call them to account on their violations or their stalling. They are confident that Obama’s lust for an agreement and pressure from Europe to end the concessions will obtain for them an even weaker nuclear deal or the time and leeway to achieve their nuclear ambition without even bothering to sign a deal.

The reaction from the administration and its apologists should confirm them in this belief. But the news about the violation should give Congress even more reason to pass tougher sanctions to increase the pressure on Iran. Iran’s cheating strengthens an already strong case for more sanctions, not more concessions from Obama.

Read Less

SCOTUS and ObamaCare: Round Two

The Supreme Court today granted certiorari in the case of King v. Burwell, in which several senators and congressmen and an assortment of non-governmental organizations such as the Cato Institute and several states sued, claiming that the IRS interpretation of the Affordable Care Act was contrary to the plain text of the law.

Read More

The Supreme Court today granted certiorari in the case of King v. Burwell, in which several senators and congressmen and an assortment of non-governmental organizations such as the Cato Institute and several states sued, claiming that the IRS interpretation of the Affordable Care Act was contrary to the plain text of the law.

The ACA grants subsidies to people with lower incomes who buy insurance through the exchanges “established by the states.” Since only 16 states set up such exchanges, the federal government stepped in and set up exchanges in the other 34 states. But the IRS has ruled that the subsidies are available through these exchanges as well.

The plaintiffs lost in both the district court and in the 4th Circuit, which sits in Richmond.  Both courts argued that the act as a whole shows that Congress’s intent was not to limit subsidies only to state exchanges. The fact that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case does not necessarily mean that it disagrees with the lower court, only that at least four justices want the Supreme Court to finally decide the case.

But it is very interesting indeed that the Court did not wait for the en banc hearing in the D.C. Circuit Court in the Halbig v. Sebelius case. In that case, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit threw out the subsidies, saying the plain language of the statute prevailed. But Harry Reid threw out the filibuster rule in the Senate in order to pack that court, and the whole court voided that decision and agreed to hear the case en banc—i.e. with the whole court sitting. Whether the Supreme Court wants to get the issue settled, or whether it was annoyed at the D.C. Circuit Court for not following its own rules regarding en banc hearings we cannot know. The Supreme Court is just about the only institution in Washington that doesn’t leak like a sieve.

Should the high court go with the plaintiffs, it is hard to see how ObamaCare could survive. With no subsidies, many people could not afford the insurance and only the sickest would sign up. That would send premiums skyrocketing, sending the whole program into what the administration has dubbed a “death spiral.”

Since the court grants a writ of certiorari in only about one percent of the cases that appeal to the court, there is at least a substantial chance that the court will reverse the circuit court decision and thus effectively kill the Obama administration’s signature accomplishment. It doesn’t have a lot of other accomplishments to call its own.

President Obama is not having a good week.

Read Less

Obama’s Insufficient Small Steps On ISIS

President Obama is slowly moving in the right direction in Iraq. Sort of. On Friday afternoon–love that timing: normally used to bury announcements that the administration would like to see ignored–came word that he would authorize the dispatch of another 1,500 troops to Iraq in addition to the 1,400 already there. These troops will apparently be allowed to go beyond Baghdad and Erbil but still will not be allowed to go into combat.

Read More

President Obama is slowly moving in the right direction in Iraq. Sort of. On Friday afternoon–love that timing: normally used to bury announcements that the administration would like to see ignored–came word that he would authorize the dispatch of another 1,500 troops to Iraq in addition to the 1,400 already there. These troops will apparently be allowed to go beyond Baghdad and Erbil but still will not be allowed to go into combat.

That’s a step in the right direction but only a small step. Most credible estimates suggest that he will need to dispatch at least 15,000 personnel and that they need to be given the freedom to accompany indigenous units into battle so as to improve their combat capability and more accurately call in air strikes. Moreover US troops need to be sent to make direct contact with Sunni tribes in Anbar Province instead of working exclusively through Iraqi Security Forces that are compromised by Iranian infiltration. Obama also needs to order an increase in the bombing campaign which so far has been desultory and far short of the kind of sustained air campaigns the U.S. waged in Kosovo (1999) and Afghanistan (2001).

And that is to say nothing of Syria where current plans call for training all of 1,500 Free Syrian Army soldiers next year–a ludicrously small number given that ISIS alone is estimated to have some 30,000 fighters and the Nusra Front and the Assad regime have substantial forces of their own. But then it’s increasingly obvious that Obama has no intention of going after Assad–as he reassured Ayatollah Khameini in a letter proposing an Iran-US alliance against ISIS. That kind of talk, aside from raising hackles in Tehran, scares the willies out of Sunnis and makes it much more difficult to sign them up for an anti-ISIS alliance.

As usual Obama is a puzzling study in half-measures and equivocation. Remember when he ordered a troop surge in Afghanistan but sent fewer troops than needed and saddled them with an 18-month deadline that severely hampered their effectiveness? If he were going to take ownership of the Afghanistan War, Obama would have been well advised to do it right–to send enough forces to make victory likely. But that’s not what he did, apparently for fear of offending his electoral base–as if his hard-core voters would have bolted if he had sent 150,000 rather than 100,000 troops to Afghanistan. The same impulse, alas, is visible today in Syria and Iraq where Obama continues to do just enough to say he is doing something–but not enough to win.

Read Less

An Unbalanced View of the Zivotofsky Case

In today’s Wall Street Journal, David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey – who served in the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s office during the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations – propose a “balancing” test to resolve the Zivotofsky passport case. They acknowledge Congress can regulate passports and has given Jerusalem-born Americans the right, if they request it, to have “Israel” on their passports as their place of birth. They argue, however, that (1) the “harm” to Congress would be “small” if its statute were declared unconstitutional, while (2) presidential “recognition authority” would be “severely undercut” if the law were implemented. Both assertions are demonstrably wrong, as Monday’s oral argument made clear.

Read More

In today’s Wall Street Journal, David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey – who served in the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s office during the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations – propose a “balancing” test to resolve the Zivotofsky passport case. They acknowledge Congress can regulate passports and has given Jerusalem-born Americans the right, if they request it, to have “Israel” on their passports as their place of birth. They argue, however, that (1) the “harm” to Congress would be “small” if its statute were declared unconstitutional, while (2) presidential “recognition authority” would be “severely undercut” if the law were implemented. Both assertions are demonstrably wrong, as Monday’s oral argument made clear.

Chief Justice Roberts, in an exchange with Solicitor General Verrelli, demonstrated that there is no principled way of applying such a test, and that the “harm” would be either ceding unreviewable power to the president or requiring case-by-case litigation as the Court “balances” each case:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Let’s say … that passports are printed in Country A, not the United States, and there’s a printing plant there, and Congress passes a law saying, no, you must have the passports printed in Country B because we don’t think you should recognize Country A. Does that interfere with the President’s recognition power?

How do you “balance” that one? And who decides (“balances”) it – the President, the Congress, or the Court? Verrelli responded to Roberts that the hypothetical was a harder case than Zivotofsky’s, but Verrelli did not venture a judgment on it, nor declare which of the three branches of government should make the decision. The Roberts hypothetical shows that while a “balancing test” may sound reasonable, “balance” is in the eye of the beholder: one could just as easily argue that Congressional authority would be “severely undercut” if the president can ignore it whenever he thinks foreigners won’t like it.

Justice Alito’s questioning also demonstrated that the president’s power would not be “severely undercut” if the law were enforced, because the U.S. already effectively recognizes Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem — for purposes directly bearing on Zivotofsky’s passport:

JUSTICE ALITO: May I ask you another factual question? When Menachem [Zivotofsky] was born, was he issued a birth certificate by the Israeli authorities?

MS. LEWIN: Yes.

JUSTICE ALITO: And the United States recognizes that as a lawful exercise of Israeli authority, to issue a birth certificate for a child born in Jerusalem?

MS. LEWIN: I believe they do, Your Honor.

JUSTICE ALITO: So this is a question I would ask the Solicitor General, but I don’t completely understand what the position of the United States is regarding Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. I understand it is the position of the United States that Israel does not exercise full sovereignty over Jerusalem, but that in this instance, the issuance of a birth certificate, I suspect the United States recognizes that Israel is lawfully exercising attributes of sovereignty over the territory of Jerusalem.

In other words, to qualify for a U.S. passport, one must prove one is a U.S. citizen; and the U.S. accepts the birth certificate issued by Israel for an American born in Israel’s capital. But it would supposedly “severely undercut” the president’s power if that individual has the right, at his request, to have “Israel” put on his own passport as his place of birth?

Later in the oral argument, Justice Alito directed his question to Solicitor General Verrilli:

JUSTICE ALITO: Can I ask you the question I asked Ms. Lewin. What exactly is the position of the executive regarding Israel’s exercise of sovereign powers in Jerusalem? Is it the case that it is the position of the executive that Israel cannot lawfully exercise any sovereign powers within Jerusalem?

GENERAL VERRILLI: The position of the executive is that we recognize, as a practical matter, the authority of Israel over West Jerusalem. With respect to the rest of Jerusalem, the issue is far more complicated. It might well be, as a practical matter … we would accept [the birth certificate] as evidence of birth …

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, it must have been accepted as evidence of birth or the passport would never have been issued.

Zivotofsky was born in Shaare Zekek Hospital in West Jerusalem. Thus as a “practical matter,” as even the Solicitor General conceded, he was born in Israel. Would it really “severely undercut” the president’s power if Zivotofsky’s passport, like his birth certificate, recognized that fact — while reserving presidential authority to declare it does not affect U.S. recognition policy, just as President Clinton did in connection with the passports of Taiwan-born Americans?

It is a strange “balancing test” that sees no harm in preventing Congress from exercising its admitted Constitutional authority, when – as Justice Kennedy’s questions skillfully showed – the president’s own authority is easily preserved. This case could have been resolved years ago by adhering to the Taiwan precedent, rather than litigating for a decade to preserve the pretense that the “peace process” depends on the place of birth in Zivotofsky’s passport.

Read Less

Hillary Learning Wrong Midterm Lessons

If you thought something important was missing from the extensive coverage afforded the midterm elections this week, you were right. Amid the deluge of interviews and analyses of the stunning Republican victory, there was complete silence from one of the most important political players in the country: Hillary Clinton. The former first lady/secretary of state was presumably in a secure undisclosed Democratic location once the returns started coming in so as to avoid having to say anything about the defeat of her party and some of the people she worked hard to elect. But now that the dust is settling, the “ready for Hillary” crowd thinks it will soon be safe for her to come out of hiding and begin the process of allowing Democrats to coronate her as their next presidential nominee. But, if the report about their thinking in the New York Times is any indication, it looks like Hillary and her acolytes are choosing to learn all the wrong lessons from the midterms.

Read More

If you thought something important was missing from the extensive coverage afforded the midterm elections this week, you were right. Amid the deluge of interviews and analyses of the stunning Republican victory, there was complete silence from one of the most important political players in the country: Hillary Clinton. The former first lady/secretary of state was presumably in a secure undisclosed Democratic location once the returns started coming in so as to avoid having to say anything about the defeat of her party and some of the people she worked hard to elect. But now that the dust is settling, the “ready for Hillary” crowd thinks it will soon be safe for her to come out of hiding and begin the process of allowing Democrats to coronate her as their next presidential nominee. But, if the report about their thinking in the New York Times is any indication, it looks like Hillary and her acolytes are choosing to learn all the wrong lessons from the midterms.

According to this very friendly insider report in the Times, Hillary’s crowd is actually encouraged by this week’s election results. While they indicate that the candidate will take her time and conduct a listening tour of the country to help her figure out what stands and issues to campaign on, they believe there’s no point in delaying the start of her campaign much longer. The Clintonites think having a Republican Congress in power will give her an easy foil to run against in 2016. And though many of her allies were beaten on Tuesday, they are actually taking solace from one of their party’s most humiliating defeats — the loss in deep blue Maryland’s governor’s race — since that can be interpreted as a rejection of outgoing Governor Martin O’Malley, who may challenge Clinton in the presidential primaries.

All three of these conclusions should trouble those who are rooting for Clinton to be elected in 2016.

First, the idea that Hillary will be spending the coming months in much the same way she began her career in elective office when running for a New York Senate seat, reminds us of her greatest weakness as a politician.

Unlike most people who are running for president, Clinton never seems to know what exactly she stands for except her own advancement. Listening is one thing, trying to concoct yet another new political identity on the fly is quite another. Bereft as she is of any political principles, she can never decide whether she is a centrist who can play the adult in the room or an Elizabeth Warren-style left-wing populist. Clinton may believe if she listens to enough smart people and takes good notes, she will learn her lessons and be able to present herself as a plausible president. But as she has repeatedly demonstrated this past year on first her book tour and then her campaign appearances for what Rand Paul’s staff aptly labeled “Hillary’s losers,” the transparent inauthenticity of her approach as well as her lack of the natural campaign skills her husband possesses, inevitably leads to gaffes and embarrassment. Anyone who expects a different result this time is bound to be disappointed.

Second, the facile optimism about the GOP victory being good news for Clinton shows few in her circle are thinking seriously about the results.

It is true that many Democrats think Clinton can profit from running against what they will label a “do-nothing” or “obstructionist” Congress regardless of whether these descriptions are accurate. But the notion that Republicans will remain the sole owners of Washington gridlock in the next two years is a dubious one. If the House and the Senate act in concert, as they should, it will be Obama who will be the one saying “no” via vetoes, not the right-wingers in the House or Senate. That will make it harder for someone who will effectively be running for a third term for Obama to absolve herself and her party of all connection to the nation’s problems.

Just as important, the returns reminded us that without the magic pull of the president at the top of the Democratic ticket, there is no guarantee of the sort of massive turnout of minorities and young people that characterized the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. Clinton may hope the historic nature of her own candidacy will enable her to pull off the same feat as Obama did. But we know Clinton can’t hold a candle to the president when it comes to political appeal. The midterms proved that the Democrats’ reliance on their old memes about the beastliness of the GOP has run out of steam. Hillary will need to think up something new and that brings with it as many dangers as advantages. As Michael Barone writes, the shrinkage of Obama’s blue empire this year may well indicate that Democrats are losing ground. While the 2016 electorate will probably be more favorable for Democrats than that of 2014, it may not be enough to convince voters to allow Obama’s party yet another term in office.

Last, any relief about O’Malley’s discomfit at the Maryland results only serves to reinforce the lack of sense that always seems to characterize Hillary’s camp. O’Malley, the most deferential to Clinton of all her potential Democrat challengers, was never going to be a threat to Hillary. Her real trouble will come from the hard left as Bernie Sanders and the rest of the Elizabeth Warren crowd cheering him on, will push her away from centrist positions if she hasn’t already abandoned them.

Though Hillary Clinton is the certain Democratic presidential nominee and will enter 2016 with considerable advantages, nothing that happened this week should be considered good news for her candidacy. That Clinton’s camp seems incapable of figuring this out as they prepare for another fake listening tour, is a harbinger of trouble for her efforts.

Read Less

Lessons for ISIS from the Khmer Rouge

Between 1975 and 1979, the Khmer Rouge ravaged Cambodia, killing between one and two million people before its murderous regime was ousted by a Vietnamese invasion. While Cambodia is far from Iraq and Syria, there are a number of parallels between the Khmer Rouge and the Islamic State (ISIS) that might inform the policy debate today.

Read More

Between 1975 and 1979, the Khmer Rouge ravaged Cambodia, killing between one and two million people before its murderous regime was ousted by a Vietnamese invasion. While Cambodia is far from Iraq and Syria, there are a number of parallels between the Khmer Rouge and the Islamic State (ISIS) that might inform the policy debate today.

First, both are deeply ideological movements, even if the roots of those ideologies draw upon very different sources. Then, the Khmer Rouge arose from the vacuum that resulted after the precipitous departure of American forces from the region, just as the Islamic State seized advantage from the departure of American troops. Just as some analysts and academics—not without reason—suggest that it was America’s initial military involvement in Iraq which open Pandora’s Box and led to the cascade of events which culminated in the Islamic State’s rise, so too did analysts and academics in the 1970s seek to shift blame from the Khmer Rouge’s atrocities to the United States on the logic that had the United States not involved itself in Vietnam and bombed Cambodia, none of the subsequent history would have occurred.

According to the academic work of Yale Professor Ben Kiernan, the Khmer Rouge was not an equal opportunity offender: Cambodia was a diverse place, and while the Khmer Rouge killed ethnic Khmers and the urban elite, it sought out and targeted Cambodia’s ethnic Vietnamese with special enthusiasm. In this way, the Khmer Rouge is like ISIS for whom Iraq’s Shi’ites and religious minorities is the true target, even as they slaughter ordinary Sunnis.

Conducting an average of seven airstrikes a day would never have stopped the Khmer Rouge, and at any rate, Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter never tried such a thing. Likewise, training a rag tag group of moderate communists would never have unseated the Khmer Rouge any more than training a rag tag group of moderate Islamists would now. The time to stop the Khmer Rouge was before it arose, but once it sunk its roots into Cambodia’s soil, the only way to end it and its unassuageable appetite for murder was a full-scale invasion.

If the parallel holds, then, the question for policymakers is which country will be the Islamic State’s “Vietnam.” Symbolic bombing will not do the trick, nor will training a militia or even a small deployment of boots on the ground. Certainly, it will not be the United States who occupies Iraq and Syria to drive out the Islamic State. Perhaps Iran or Turkey will one day do the dirty work, although both would simply trade one evil for another. Then again, the Khmer Rouge had four years before someone stepped up to the plate. The question analysts must now consider is that if such a parallel holds, how much more damage can the Islamic State do now to Syrians and Iraqis and the broader region in general, than the Khmer Rouge did in Southeast Asia 35 years ago.

Read Less

Lessons on Iran from the Fall of the Berlin Wall

This Sunday marks the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. I grew up against the backdrop of the Cold War. Leonid Brezhnev was the Soviet premier for the first decade of my life. His 1982 funeral was represented the dour pageantry of the Soviet Union to which we had become accustomed. I was in the sixth grade when a Soviet pilot shot down Korean Air 007. In hindsight we learned that it was perhaps the closest the United States and Soviet Union had come to nuclear war in my lifetime. And, as a voracious reader, I grew up reading Cold War thrillers such as Fail Safe, Seven Days in May, On the Beach, and later The Charm School, and I also remember the debates in school about whether or not it was appropriate for kids my age to see The Day After when it first appeared on television. Walking around Northeast Philadelphia where I grew up, many buildings still housed these signs which somewhere along the years thankfully disappeared.

Read More

This Sunday marks the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. I grew up against the backdrop of the Cold War. Leonid Brezhnev was the Soviet premier for the first decade of my life. His 1982 funeral was represented the dour pageantry of the Soviet Union to which we had become accustomed. I was in the sixth grade when a Soviet pilot shot down Korean Air 007. In hindsight we learned that it was perhaps the closest the United States and Soviet Union had come to nuclear war in my lifetime. And, as a voracious reader, I grew up reading Cold War thrillers such as Fail Safe, Seven Days in May, On the Beach, and later The Charm School, and I also remember the debates in school about whether or not it was appropriate for kids my age to see The Day After when it first appeared on television. Walking around Northeast Philadelphia where I grew up, many buildings still housed these signs which somewhere along the years thankfully disappeared.

When I had my bar mitzvah back in 1984, like many of my peers, I was “twinned” with a Soviet Jew my age and encouraged to write to him. I quickly received a note back asking me not to write anymore because his family feared for their safety. Teachers and peers, meanwhile, would regularly go and protest Ronald Reagan’s “warmongering” and military build-up in Western Europe. Against the backdrop of all this, there were many who downplayed the importance of freedom even as it was denied to so many. The Soviet Union would be a permanent fixture of our world and that we just had to bargain with what was there rather than what we’d like to see. Cuba might be a dictatorship, but couldn’t we just applaud its health-care system? Maybe the United States was at fault in Nicaragua and the people truly wanted to be in the Communist orbit.

Then Berlin happened. It was my senior year in high school, and what a heady time it was, coming just months after the bloody crackdown in Tiananmen Square. Despite what diplomats, teachers, professors, and news anchors told us, perhaps people really did want to be free. It’s hard to argue with hundreds of thousands clamoring to escape the prison in which their leaders had put them. Whereas many so-called sophisticated Americans had mocked Ronald Reagan for his “evil empire” remarks, those escaping from Soviet tutelage described his moral clarity as a shot of adrenalin to those seeking freedom and individual liberty.

How unfortunate it is, then, that history must repeat, that somehow those in power and those entrusted with American diplomacy have come to once again embrace moral equivalency and shirk moral clarity. We need look no further than Iran. Whereas many U.S. presidents have reached their hand out to the Iranian people, President Obama was the first to substitute a direct outreach to Iranians with instead the legitimization of the Islamic Republic, the regime which so oppresses them.

Part of this might be ignorance of his advisors. When one looks at the histories and explanations of the Islamic Revolution published in English, so many of these were commissioned against the backdrop of revolution by publishers who wanted an answer to how so many in the West were taken by surprise by the Islamic Revolution. The most popular of the resulting books—and those still used in universities—for example, Nikki Keddie’s Roots of Revolution and Ervand Abrahamian’s Iran Between Two Revolutions, treated the Islamic Revolution as the natural apex of Iranian political evolution. It might not have looked it at the time, but such a conclusion was nonsense. The Islamic Revolution was just as much an anomaly, one made possible by a confluence of events ranging from the shah’s cancer, Carter’s bungling, Khomeini’s exile from Iraq, and pure dumb luck on Khomeini’s part. It does a tremendous disservice to the Iranian people to treat the theocracy and regime imposed upon them by Ayatollah Khomeini as a permanent part of the Iranian political landscape.

The outreach Obama initiated led the president to downplay rather than offer moral support to the 2009 uprising inside Iran. Then, in order to grease his outreach, he offered Iran more than $7 billion in sanctions relief at a time when, thanks in part to sanctions, Iran’s economy was fast contracting. And that was even before the price of oil dropped precipitously, well below the level necessary to support the budget which Iranian leaders calculated.

Ronald Reagan ended the Soviet Union by forcing it to bankrupt itself. Obama was offered the same opportunity with a state just as hostile to the United States and chose to throw it a life raft. As we near a quarter century from the Berlin Wall’s fall, we should not kid ourselves by believing that it is somehow sophisticated diplomacy to preserve our adversaries or downplay the aspirations for freedom which peoples chafing under dictatorship hold. It is a lesson Obama and Kerry should consider as they work to cement their legacy on the backs of ordinary Iranians.

Read Less

Dempsey Debunks U.S. Attacks on Israel

Over the course of this past summer’s war between Hamas and Israel, the Jewish state was subjected to bitter criticism from both the U.S. State Department and the White House. The Obama administration made it clear that it believed Israel’s counter-attack against Hamas missile attacks and terror tunnels was disproportionate. Civilian casualty figures were frequently cited to chide the Israelis for killing and wounding Palestinians. Some of us pointed out that Israel’s efforts to avoid civilian casualties not only gave the lie to these accusations but also actually compared favorably to that of the U.S. military in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. But don’t take my word for it. According to Reuters, earlier this week General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a New York audience that Israel went to “extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilians casualties” in Gaza.

Read More

Over the course of this past summer’s war between Hamas and Israel, the Jewish state was subjected to bitter criticism from both the U.S. State Department and the White House. The Obama administration made it clear that it believed Israel’s counter-attack against Hamas missile attacks and terror tunnels was disproportionate. Civilian casualty figures were frequently cited to chide the Israelis for killing and wounding Palestinians. Some of us pointed out that Israel’s efforts to avoid civilian casualties not only gave the lie to these accusations but also actually compared favorably to that of the U.S. military in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. But don’t take my word for it. According to Reuters, earlier this week General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a New York audience that Israel went to “extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilians casualties” in Gaza.

The contradiction between Dempsey’s remarks and the blistering criticisms of Israeli behavior uttered by the State Department and White House is instructive. Dempsey not only undermined the credibility of anything said by the U.S. during the war. He also exposed the president’s political agenda against the Jewish state and its government, a point that was made clear in the recent controversy about “senior administration officials” telling The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg that Prime Minister Netanyahu was a “coward” and a “chickenshit.”

Dempsey told the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs in New York that the Israelis “did what they could” to avoid civilian casualties. In a war fought with a ruthless terrorist enemy that deliberately hid behind civilians and operating out of mosques, hospitals, schools, and public shelters, there is simply no way to prevent civilians from getting hurt. That’s a point the U.S. military readily understood even if the Obama administration chose to use the pictures of dead civilians as an opportunity to score points at the expense of the Israelis.

But Dempsey went further than sympathizing with his Israeli counterparts:

Dempsey said the Pentagon three months ago sent a “lessons-learned team” of senior officers and non-commissioned officers to work with the IDF to see what could be learned from the Gaza operation, “to include the measures they took to prevent civilian casualties and what they did with tunneling.”

The general said civilian casualties during the conflict were “tragic, but I think the IDF did what they could” to avoid them.

He said he thought his Israeli counterpart would look at lessons learned from the conflict to see what more could be done to avoid civilian deaths in future operations.

“The IDF is not interested in creating civilian casualties. They’re interested in stopping the shooting of rockets and missiles out of the Gaza Strip and into Israel,” Dempsey said.

The subtext to the administration’s attacks on the Israelis about Gaza is that the president has been deeply involved in ordering air strikes on terrorist targets throughout the Middle East. While there’s no doubt that the American military is as interested in avoiding harm to civilians as the Israelis, they know very well that many are killed or wounded when bombs are dropped on those responsible for terrorism. The only difference between the two conflicts is not in the character of the targets. There isn’t much difference between the Islamist killers of Hamas and those of al-Qaeda or ISIS. But the international media doesn’t pay nearly as much attention to such attacks when Israelis aren’t involved. Moreover, the media’s coverage of Gaza was incredibly one-sided as no pictures of Hamas fighters or missile launches were published or broadcast despite the army of journalists roaming the strip during the conflict.

But the issue is not merely the falsity of the American carping about Israeli actions. There’s little doubt the White House and the State Department were well aware of the U.S. military’s opinion of what was going on in Gaza or the fact that American actions ordered by Obama produce much the same results.

The American military is right to seek to learn the lessons of Gaza and to do what they can to emulate Israeli actions. But the real agenda at play in Washington on this issue has been a concerted effort by the Obama administration to undermine Israel’s right of self-defense in order to weaken its ability to stand up to U.S. pressure. Seen in that light, the real lesson to be culled from this episode is that everything that comes out of the mouths of the president’s foreign-policy team with respect to Israel should be considered false until proven otherwise.

Read Less

After the GOP Wave

Some post-election thoughts in light of the GOPs tidal wave on Tuesday:

Read More

Some post-election thoughts in light of the GOPs tidal wave on Tuesday:

1. The majority of Republicans have reacted to their victories in an impressive fashion. Their rhetoric is restrained, serious, and mature. They know that while they did extremely well in races at every level, they still have a ways to go to earn the trust and loyalty of most Americans (that’s more true of congressional Republicans than those who are governors). Republicans in the Senate and House are signaling a willingness to work with the president if he’s willing to show some flexibility. (The president’s apparent commitment to go forward with an unconstitutional executive amnesty order will be all the evidence we need that Mr. Obama is determined to further polarize our politics and rip apart our political culture.) Speaker Boehner and the next Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, have already put forward their to-do list; so have others. There’s evidence that Republicans–most of them, anyway–have internalized the need to show they’re more serious about putting forward a governing agenda and solving problems facing middle class Americans than “telegenic confrontations” and “volcanic effusions.”  The GOP’s detoxification effort is well under way.

2. What ought to encourage Republicans isn’t simply that their ranks have swollen, but the quality of many of the new arrivals, from Tom Cotton and Ben Sasse in the Senate to Elise Stefanik and Barbara Comstock in the House to many others. The GOP does best when it’s seen as the home of individuals with conservative principles and a governing temperament. A winsome personality doesn’t hurt, either.

3. The GOP’s victory was the result of many things, from President Obama’s unpopularity and the awful political environment Democrats faced to the superior quality of the Republican candidates, their disciplined, gaffe-free campaigns, successful fundraising, and the select intervention by various groups into Republican primaries (ensuring that the most electable conservative was nominated). But not to be overlooked is that Republicans did a much better job than in the past with their Get Out The Vote effort, including turnout of low-propensity voters. As National Journal’s Ron Fournier put it:

A review of the RNC’s targeting operation (including a preelection sample of specific projections) suggests to me that the GOP has made significant advances on targeting and mobilizing voters. While the Democratic Party may still own the best ground game, GOP Chairman Reince Priebus has narrowed, if not closed, the tech gap.

A few Democrats saw this coming. “Our side has underestimated the GOP ground game,” Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told me Tuesday morning. “Their electorate doesn’t look like ours, so we don’t recognize or respect what they’re doing.”

4. The most surprising outcome of the evening may have been how well Republicans did in governor’s races around the nation. They were predicted to lose several seats; instead, they made a net gain of three. Among the most impressive was Ohio’s John Kasich, who won by more than 30 points. He carried heavily Democratic counties like Lucas and Cuyahoga. In fact, in a key purple state, Kasich carried 86 of Ohio’s 88 counties and a quarter of the African-American vote. Mr. Kasich has amassed an impressive record as governor–and a popular one, too. He’s one of America’s most engaging and interesting politicians. If he wants to run for president in 2016, he certainly helped his cause on Tuesday.

5. There are plenty of reasons for Republicans to be buoyed. They have very impressive people, including people in their ’30s and ’40s, at every level. Of the two parties, the GOP seems to be the one of greater energy and ideas. The Democratic Party, and liberalism more broadly, seems stale, aging, and exhausted. And of course the GOP has now strung together massive, back-to-back midterm wins. But it’s still worth keeping in mind that Republicans had spectacular showings in 1994 and 2010–and they were defeated by rather large margins in the presidential races two years after those wins. The danger is that a victory like the one Republicans experienced on Tuesday creates a false dawn, a sense of false confidence. Winning midterms elections is important; but midterm elections are different than presidential elections. The GOP still has repair work to do and things to build on. But progress is being made–and the results of this week’s election are the best evidence of that fact.

Read Less

Harry Reid Throws Himself a Pity Party

In September 2012 a story from Bob Woodward’s latest book took almost total control of the news cycle by describing an argument President Obama had with Harry Reid’s chief of staff, David Krone, with Reid in the room. It was about the 2011 debt-ceiling negotiations. Congressional leaders had come to a tentative agreement on avoiding the so-called fiscal cliff, but the deal had a major flaw from Obama’s perspective. Reid and Krone arrived to the meeting, and Krone explained the deal, which included a concession from House Republicans that Obama hadn’t expected them to offer, and the president doubted the GOP could be trusted.

Read More

In September 2012 a story from Bob Woodward’s latest book took almost total control of the news cycle by describing an argument President Obama had with Harry Reid’s chief of staff, David Krone, with Reid in the room. It was about the 2011 debt-ceiling negotiations. Congressional leaders had come to a tentative agreement on avoiding the so-called fiscal cliff, but the deal had a major flaw from Obama’s perspective. Reid and Krone arrived to the meeting, and Krone explained the deal, which included a concession from House Republicans that Obama hadn’t expected them to offer, and the president doubted the GOP could be trusted.

Woodward describes Krone’s reaction:

“Mr. President, I am sorry — with all due respect — that we are in this situation that we’re in, but we got handed this football on Friday night. And I didn’t create this situation. The first thing that baffles me is, from my private-sector experience, the first rule that I’ve always been taught is to have a Plan B. And it is really disheartening that you, that this White House did not have a Plan B.”

Several jaws dropped as the Hill staffer blasted the president to his face.

On the ride back to the Capitol, Reid made it clear Krone did exactly what Reid wanted him to: “You stood up to him,” Reid said. “He needed to hear it, and nobody was telling him.”

So goes Reid’s relationship with Obama. They absolutely can’t stand each other. And all that makes what is happening in the wake of the Democrats’ 2014 midterms shellacking seem both shocking and also inevitable. Reid is publicly blaming Obama for the Democrats’ woes, and using Krone to do it. This time, however, he’s escalated the Democratic civil war. He’s authorized Krone to slap Obama around on the record, a rarity.

In Robert Costa and Philip Rucker’s excellent wrap-up story on the midterms, they recounted how two days before the elections, “Krone sat at a mahogany conference table in the majority leader’s stately suite just off the Senate floor and shared with Washington Post reporters his notes of White House meetings. Reid’s top aide wanted to show just how difficult he thought it had been to work with the White House.”

Reid’s office was pre-spinning the expected loss of the Senate by going on record with the Post to blame Obama before anyone had a chance to say otherwise. And what was he saying? That the Obama White House wasn’t getting Democrats the money they could and should have to help fend off the Republicans charging up the hill. It was not, in the grand scheme of things, a ton of money, and the disagreement seemed highly technical. But that’s not how Reid saw it. “I don’t think that the political team at the White House truly was up to speed and up to par doing what needed to get done,” Krone said.

Krone–the top staffer to the outgoing Senate majority leader–thinks the Obama White House’s indifference and incompetence is costing the party. Over at Mother Jones, Kevin Drum pushes back on this and on the other prominent complaints about Obama from Senate Democrats:

Apparently David Krone is such an unbelievable [a**hole] that he actively decided to vent all his bitterness and bile to a couple of reporters solely to demonstrate just how hard poor David Krone’s job had been during this election season. He even made sure to bring along his notes to make sure he didn’t forget any of his grievances. As an example of preemptive CYA, this is unequaled in recent memory.

Obama certainly was a drag on his party. But Reid’s behavior here is childish to the point of absurdity for one reason. Reid is in a far better position, post-midterms, than the Democrats representing their party in the rest of the federal government. The Republicans are going to end up, in all likelihood, with 54 seats in the Senate. And yet in 2016, they will be defending 24 seats while the Democrats will be defending 10. Further, as Roll Call explains, “only two Democratic seats are in competitive states, while more than half a dozen Republican incumbents face re-election in states President Barack Obama carried at least once.”

The Democrats are by no means guaranteed to take back the Senate–far from it. But the terrain is friendly enough to them in 2016 that it’s a real possibility, especially since they’ll have higher presidential-year turnout. If the election at the top of the ticket goes well for them, the Democrats might very well earn back the majority (if they win the presidency they’ll need only 50, not 51 seats to do so) just two years after losing it.

Compare that to the House, where Republicans continue to have a favorable landscape and have expanded their majority to its largest in more than 80 years. And for the White House, the news doesn’t get any better. Obama was repudiated resoundingly by the voters, and his legacy will be one of taking a wrecking ball to his party’s electoral coalition such that the Republicans control not only the House and Senate but governorships in blue states and a majority of state legislatures. Obama, unlike Reid, has no “next election” to brush off the narrative of failure. This was his last election, and he was on the wrong end of a landslide.

So Reid isn’t exactly the world’s most sympathetic loser here, even putting aside the fact that Democrats are now discovering what Republicans have long known: Reid is a toxic person devoid of integrity. Unless Obama has truly checked out, the White House is guaranteed to respond, ensuring the country will finally answer the question: How low can Harry Reid go?

Read Less

Desperation Not a Good Negotiating Position

Secretary of State John Kerry is headed to the Sultanate of Oman this weekend, where he will meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, and his European Union counterpart, Catherine Ashton.

Read More

Secretary of State John Kerry is headed to the Sultanate of Oman this weekend, where he will meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, and his European Union counterpart, Catherine Ashton.

Kerry’s meeting comes against the backdrop of an extraordinary interview he gave to the press from Paris:

“I want to get this done,” Kerry said during a series of meetings in which the Iranian negotiations figured prominently. “And we are driving toward the finish with a view of trying to get it done.” Kerry said Iran is entitled to develop its nuclear program for civilian, not military, use. “They have a right to a peaceful program but not a track to a bomb,” Kerry said. “We believe it is pretty easy to prove to the world that a plan is peaceful.”

The Iranians have a right to a peaceful program? Well, the Islamic Republic’s politicians have made that their mantra. But then, they conducted nuclear-weapons research at least until 2003, and stonewalled the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which, in 2005, found Iran formally in non-compliance with its Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Safeguards Agreement. This, in turn, led to the United Nations Security Council taking up the Iran file, and in turn this led to at least six UN Security Council Resolutions which found that Iran did not have a right to a peaceful program given its previous violations.

It’s all well and good for Iranian negotiators to talk about the rights bestowed by the NPT, but they fail to acknowledge their violations voided those rights. For many activists and diplomats, the talks are a fiction meant to preserve the NPT rather than the means to resolve the nuclear impasse. In this, the world sees the same nod and wink that it saw in the lead-up to the Agreed Framework with North Korea two decades ago. That Iranian negotiators hold North Korea up as a model to emulate should set off alarm bells.

Back to Kerry: He is absolutely wrong to suggest that Iran has any right to a peaceful program. The only reason why he might utter such a mantra is because he and the administration he serves have become so unilateral that they are prepared to waive not only American sanctions but several unanimous or near-unanimous Security Council resolutions.

That he believes Iran’s program is peaceful beggars belief, for it ignores that peaceful programs are not built under mountains or in secret. It ignores that if Iran’s goal is indigenous energy security, the Islamic Republic doesn’t possess enough uranium to fuel eight civilian reactors for more than 15 years. And it ignores that if Iran’s goal was merely energy security, it could have rebuilt its refinery capability and pipeline network to power itself for more than a century at a fraction of its nuclear investment. It ignores the fact that the nuclear fatwa which Obama found so convincing apparently does not exist. Nor does he pay attention to President Rouhani’s history of deception and statements which suggest extreme insincerity.

Kerry is right that there is no reason for Iran not to reach an agreement by the November 24 deadline. There was, indeed, no reason for Iran not to reach an agreement with the IAEA in 2005, or with the international community upon receiving its first sanction. All Iran had to do was come clean about its past and comply with its international commitments.

The fact of the matter is that the more Obama and Kerry project desperation for a deal—and Kerry’s statement with regard to November 24 reflects that desperation—the more likely it is that Iran will retrench itself, as Supreme Leader Khamenei recently did with his declaration of redlines.

Let us hope that Kerry remembers that the purpose of the Iran talks was to address issues of Iran’s dishonesty and non-compliance with its agreements, not to paper over them. Just as with North Korea, a bad deal is far worse than no deal at all. Securing a legacy for Obama or being the center of international attention for a day or two is not worth the price to U.S. national security.

Read Less

Is Another “Awakening” Needed in Iraq?

If you want to feel optimistic about the state of the fight against ISIS, you can read this dispatch from Ben Hubbard of the New York Times in Baghdad. He claims that “the group’s momentum appears to be stalling.” The “nut graf” (as newspaper types call the core of the story):

Read More

If you want to feel optimistic about the state of the fight against ISIS, you can read this dispatch from Ben Hubbard of the New York Times in Baghdad. He claims that “the group’s momentum appears to be stalling.” The “nut graf” (as newspaper types call the core of the story):

The international airstrike campaign against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, has clearly played a role in slowing the Sunni Muslim group’s advance. But analysts say other factors are having a major effect, including unfavorable sectarian and political demographics, pushback from overrun communities, damage to the group’s financial base in Syria and slight improvements by ground forces in Iraq.

There is something to this analysis, but not too much. Mainly what Hubbard is reporting on is the obvious fact that ISIS, as a Sunni jihadist group, can only take root in Sunni-majority areas. It is running out of new Sunni areas to conquer in Iraq largely because it has already taken control of most of the Sunni Triangle stretching from Fallujah to Mosul. That’s hardly great news, insofar as ISIS’s control over an area the size of the United Kingdom appears as strong as ever.

True, there are some signs of tribal revolts against ISIS, for example among the Jubouri tribe in Iraq, but ISIS is able to crush them with its typical ferocity. Meanwhile even the addition of Kurdish pesh merga fighters has not ended the ISIS offensive on Kobani, and while there are some slight improvements visible among anti-ISIS forces in Iraq, there is general acknowledgement that it will be a long time before Mosul or Fallujah can be liberated. To make matters worse, a lot of whatever success there has been in stalling ISIS’s momentum in Iraq comes from the actions of bloodthirsty, Iranian-backed militias under the direction of the Quds Force. Their growing power ensures that more Sunnis will continue to rally to ISIS for protection.

In many ways the situation feels, as the perspicacious Iraq analyst Joel Rayburn, a U.S. army colonel, has pointed out, like the dark days of 2005-2006 when there were scattered tribal revolts against al-Qaeda in Iraq, the ISIS predecessor, that AQI was able to “defeat brutally in detail.” The only way to defeat ISIS is by catalyzing a larger Awakening-style tribal uprising among the Sunnis. But that will require more direct American military intervention in Iraq and Syria than President Obama has been willing to countenance.

Read Less

The Jobs Report

The economy added 214,000 jobs last months, slightly below expectations, but August and September were revised upwards by a total of 31,000. Over the last six months new jobs have averaged 235,000 a month, which is better than it’s been in some time.

Read More

The economy added 214,000 jobs last months, slightly below expectations, but August and September were revised upwards by a total of 31,000. Over the last six months new jobs have averaged 235,000 a month, which is better than it’s been in some time.

The unemployment rate dropped a notch, to 5.8 percent, the best since 2008, and, for once, the participation rate went up a notch as well, to 62.8 percent. In other words, more people joined the labor force last month than left it. But we have a long way to go to get back to normal. The rate was 66 percent before the financial crisis of 2008.

Wages remain sticky. The average private-sector wage in October was up three cents to $24.57. That’s 2 percent higher than the average wage a year ago. But inflation was 1.7 percent in that time.

So the economy continues it slow recovery. There is not the slightest hint of “irrational exuberance,” except, perhaps, in the stock market, whose rise has been driven not by a good economy, but by recovering profits and very low interest rates. The latter makes bonds and CD’s unattractive alternatives to equities.

Read Less

What’s Behind the Run Over Intifada?

In the wake of the latest acts of terror against pedestrians in Jerusalem, Palestinian public opinion is again reacting with the same sensitivity that it displayed back in June when a popular campaign mocked the plight of three Jewish teenagers who were kidnapped and murdered by Hamas terrorists. Support for the “run over intifada” is endemic on Palestinian social media in much the same way as it cheered the prospect that the lives of the three boys might be bartered for the freedom of captured terrorists. But instead of pondering whether support for the spate of attacks is, as the New York Times speculates today, a new intifada “for the 21st Century,” foreign observers would do well to understand that this violence is merely a symptom of the same refusal to accept Israel’s legitimacy that has fueled the conflict for many decades.

Read More

In the wake of the latest acts of terror against pedestrians in Jerusalem, Palestinian public opinion is again reacting with the same sensitivity that it displayed back in June when a popular campaign mocked the plight of three Jewish teenagers who were kidnapped and murdered by Hamas terrorists. Support for the “run over intifada” is endemic on Palestinian social media in much the same way as it cheered the prospect that the lives of the three boys might be bartered for the freedom of captured terrorists. But instead of pondering whether support for the spate of attacks is, as the New York Times speculates today, a new intifada “for the 21st Century,” foreign observers would do well to understand that this violence is merely a symptom of the same refusal to accept Israel’s legitimacy that has fueled the conflict for many decades.

Though she recycles Palestinian myths about the reasons for the outbreak of the first two intifadas (including the infamous lie that it was Ariel Sharon’s walk on the Temple Mount rather than a calculated response by Yasir Arafat to Israeli peace moves), Times Jerusalem Bureau chief Jodi Rudoren didn’t find many who thought this outbreak was likely to result in a repeat of the carnage of the second intifada that took thousands of lives on both sides. Indeed, she did her readers a service by reminding them that the security fence built to stop suicide bombers makes a return to the horror of that episode problematic for the architects of terror.

But if she really wanted to explain the origins of the current round of violence revolving around Palestinian anger about the efforts of a minority of Israelis to reverse the ban on Jewish prayer on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount—the holiest site in Judaism as well as the home of the Al-Aksa Mosque—she would do well to go back further in history than 1987 or 2000. Conspiracy theories about Jews planning to blow up the mosques on the Temple Mount go back to the efforts of Haj Amin el-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem and Nazi ally who led the Palestinians throughout the 1920s, ’30s, and ’40s, to foment anti-Jewish pogroms long before there was a State of Israel, let alone an “occupation.”

Though Rudoren quotes Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas as saying that he doesn’t want another intifada, she fails to mention his efforts to follow in the mufti’s footsteps by urging his people to resist Jews by any means and calling a terrorist who attempted to murder a Jewish activist rabbi a martyr who went straight to heaven. Yet it’s true that Abbas doesn’t want an intifada since a collapse of security cooperation between Israel and the PA might result in a Hamas coup that could cost him life or at least his control of the West Bank. Despite his incitement of violence, it is still the Israelis who guarantee his personal security. What Rudoren also fails to note is that it is Hamas that wants an intifada for the same reason it rained down thousands of missiles on Israeli cities this past summer even though it created more destruction for Palestinians in Gaza. Their goal is keep Palestinians focused on “resistance”—a synonym for endless war that won’t be solved by Israeli territorial concessions or even greater sensitivity for Muslim desire to deny Jews rights in Jerusalem.

The point about the current violence is that nothing the Israelis are doing—whether it is Jews moving into parts of Jerusalem where Arabs want no part of them or even walking around the Temple Mount—that would prevent the restarting of peace negotiations or even a two-state solution should the Palestinians ever change their minds and decide to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn.

The tone of despair of Palestinian society that we are told is at the heart of the disturbances is, as the meaning of the word intifada indicates, a desire for a “shaking off.” But, as they have demonstrated consistently since the time of the mufti, what they want to shake off is not the supposedly oppressive rule of Israel (which, as even Rudoren notes, allows a Palestinian prosperity that makes many of them reluctant to contemplate another destructive and pointless war), but the presence of the Jews altogether and intolerance for their presence. Once again a new generation of Palestinians are taking up gasoline bombs and even using cars as weapons in order to kill or injure Jews to further that same futile aim and in the name of this ancient hatred. Though outlets like the Times promote the notion that the violence is caused by Jewish actions, the new intifada if it happens will be very much like every other episode in the Palestinians’ hundred years war against Zionism. Those that wish them well should urge them to try to shake off this rejectionist mindset lest they waste another century in pointless conflict.

Read Less

Dems May Regret Obama’s Immigration Orders

President Obama once again put the country on notice yesterday in his post-midterm election press conference that he will act to legalize millions of illegal immigrants by executive order sometime before the end of the year. Doing so will torpedo any hopes of cooperation with congressional Republicans who will rightly see the moves as an end run around the law that proves his lack of sincerity when he claims he will meet them halfway. But having made it clear that he is unmoved by the notion that the midterm results should induce him to rethink any aspect of his policies, the president will almost certainly finally redeem the promise he made to Hispanic groups to issue the orders. The only questions now are what is he waiting for and whether acting in this manner will help Democrats in the long run.

Read More

President Obama once again put the country on notice yesterday in his post-midterm election press conference that he will act to legalize millions of illegal immigrants by executive order sometime before the end of the year. Doing so will torpedo any hopes of cooperation with congressional Republicans who will rightly see the moves as an end run around the law that proves his lack of sincerity when he claims he will meet them halfway. But having made it clear that he is unmoved by the notion that the midterm results should induce him to rethink any aspect of his policies, the president will almost certainly finally redeem the promise he made to Hispanic groups to issue the orders. The only questions now are what is he waiting for and whether acting in this manner will help Democrats in the long run.

Though immigration reform advocates have been begging him to use the power of the presidency to bypass Congress on this issue for years, the president didn’t promise to do so until this past June when he spoke of issuing the orders by the end of the summer. But embattled red-state Democrats begged him to hold off at least until the election so as to avoid their being tainted by a decision that would have enraged voters. Seeking to help politicians who were his supporters even if they avoided the unpopular president like the plague during the campaign, Obama complied.

This was a mistake since the postponement enraged Hispanics who rightly felt they had been stiffed once again by a president who had chosen not to act on immigration in his first two years in office when Democratic majorities would have given him anything he asked for. This led to a distinct lack of Hispanic enthusiasm for congressional Democrats that helped sink candidates like Senator Mark Udall in Colorado. But far from quieting concerns from the rest of the public, the threat that the president would trash the rule of law in this manner as soon as voters were presumably no longer paying attention only helped generate more support for Democrats. In the end, the president got the worst of both worlds by stalling on amnesty.

But now that the election is over, there really is no political reason to delay further. If Democrats were holding onto the hope that the Louisiana runoff election for Senator Mary Landrieu’s seat could help them retain a majority in the Senate, the president might still be dithering on the issue. But with the Republicans already holding 52 seats after the dust settled on Tuesday (with one more to come from Alaska once those results are finalized), Landrieu’s survival is irrelevant to control of Congress. The president is unlikely to postpone the move to help Landrieu, whose uphill battle in the runoff against Republican Bill Cassidy seems like a hopeless cause. Indeed, it is so hopeless that despite the lack of any other races in which to invest at the moment, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has pulled the plug on nearly $2 million in television ad buys for her reelection effort.

Thus, the president did not shy away yesterday from making the case for his impending actions even though both Senator Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner warned him that he was going to “poison the well” of bipartisan cooperation even before such efforts began. In doing so, he returned to his familiar theme in which he said the reason he had to act was Congress’s failure to pass its own immigration reform bill.

This is a theory of democratic governance that defies both logic and the Constitution. The president may regret the failure of the House to pass a bipartisan reform bill that made it through the Senate. But that unwillingness to put that measure into law provides no legal or moral authority for the president to attempt to put one aspect of that bill into law unilaterally. Whether it is wise or not, Congress is under no obligation to pass legislation that it does not support even if that is the president’s wish.

There are reasonable arguments to be made on behalf of a reform of a broken immigration system as well as for doing something to bring the estimated 12 million illegals already in the country under the umbrella of the law. But what the president is planning to do isn’t reform. Nor will it fix the system. If anything, the spectacle of millions of people here in violation of the law being granted permission to stay without benefit of a vote in Congress will only encourage more illegal immigration, much as the president’s past advocacy of such measures helped create the surge of illegals at the border this past summer. The long-term result will only be to render hopes of controlling the border even more illusory.

Will the executive orders recapture Hispanic enthusiasm for the Democrats? Maybe. The assumption is that Republican opposition to amnesty will ensure that Hispanics vote for the Democrats for generations to come. But Hispanics already support the Democrats for a variety of reasons. And with two years to go until the next time the voters go to the polls in a federal election it is just as possible that many will not soon forget the cynical manner in which they were manipulated this year. But let’s assume that the Democratic stranglehold on the Hispanic vote is further strengthened by the president’s decision. What Democrats need to understand is that merely playing to their base and ignoring the rest of the voters can sometimes do as much harm to their cause as it does good.

What happened this year should have made the president and his supporters understand that the spectacle of a porous border undermines support for immigration measures. At this point, even conservatives who supported the Senate bill now realize that their House colleagues may have been right when they insisted that the border had to be secured before anything could be done to deal with the status of those already here illegally. While something needs to be done to fix the system, the border surge made a comprehensive approach politically impossible.

But for the president to now defy both public opinion and the will of Congress by acting on his own will do more than embitter his Republican antagonists. Though it will mollify one part of his coalition, rather than putting the issue to bed this end run around the law will create even more anger in the political grass roots around the country that will ensure that this issue will still be red hot in 2016. As they should have learned this year, it takes more than an energized base of minorities to win elections. Amnesty for the current crop of illegals will bring us more border surges and more damage to the rule of law. Obama may be content with that being part of his legacy, but it will be his fellow Democrats who will still be stuck trying to explain a move that can’t be defended when they go back to the voters in the future.

Read Less

Tuesday’s Tidal Wave

It’s worth stepping back and assessing the breadth and dimensions of the results of the 2014 midterm elections:

Read More

It’s worth stepping back and assessing the breadth and dimensions of the results of the 2014 midterm elections:

  • The Republican Party made substantial gains in the Senate, the House, among governorships, and in state legislatures. It now has a comfortable majority in each. The Republican Party “is basically the nation’s governing party,” as my Ethics and Public Policy Center colleague Yuval Levin put it.
  • In the Senate, Republicans started the week with 45 seats. They’re likely to end the year (after the December 6 Louisiana runoff) with 54–a net gain of nine seats. Note well: Not since 1980 have Republicans beaten more than two incumbent Democrats. On Tuesday, Republicans defeated four incumbent Democrats–in Arkansas, North Carolina, Colorado, and Alaska–and they’re favored to win in Louisiana. Republicans also won open seats in Iowa, West Virginia, Montana, and South Dakota, all previously held by Democrats.
  • The GOP will hold at least 31 governorships, including gains made in the traditionally Democratic states of Illinois, Maryland, and Massachusetts.
  • The GOP now holds 69 of the country’s 99 state houses and senates. (The previous high was 64 chambers in 1920.)
  • Republicans will have full control of at least 29 state legislatures, the party’s largest total since 1928.
  • In the races for the Senate, House, and governorships, Republicans will have picked up 32 seats (nine in the senate, 19 in the House, and four governorships); Democrats will have picked up just four seat (three in the House and the governorship of Pennsylvania).
  • As for the damage the Obama years have done to the Democratic Party, consider this: During President Obama’s first term, Democrats held 60 seats in the Senate. By the end of his term they’ll probably hold 46, a net loss of 14. When Mr. Obama took office in 2008, Democrats had control of 257 House seats; by the end of his term, the likely number will be 185–a net loss of 72 seats. And when Mr. Obama was first sworn in as president, Democrats held 28 governorships; by the end of his term, they’ll hold 18–a net loss of 10 seats.

Prior to Tuesday’s election, the political analyst Stuart Rothenberg wrote, “President Barack Obama is about to do what no president has done in the past 50 years: Have two horrible, terrible, awful midterm elections in a row. In fact, Obama is likely to have the worst midterm numbers of any two-term president going back to Democrat Harry S. Truman.” The midterm results were even worse for Democrats than Mr. Rothenberg anticipated. All of which may vindicate this judgment by Michael Barone, who said it looks as if President Obama will leave his party “in worse shape than any president since Woodrow Wilson nearly a century ago.”

Read Less




Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.