Today we mourn, tomorrow we vote

September 11, 2001, was a Tuesday. Though our leaders seemed to be asleep at the wheel in the months preceding, and in the first minutes of the horror, these attacks were essentially a physical assault from the outside. 

That fateful Tuesday was a primary election day in New York, and it was appropriately postponed. In the years that have followed, and right up to recent days, we have seen our democratic way of life both tested and diminished -- that is on us, not on the terrorists. 

Tomorrow is another such primary day, giving us a new opportunity to honor and reaffirm our democratic institutions in real time. If you are registered as anything other than "independent", then please come out and vote to determine who will be the nominee for your party in the November general election. 

We cannot bring back those we lost on that beautiful sunny day, nor the thousands more we sacrificed in pyrrhic pursuit of vindication in Afghanistan and Iraq. But we can do this little act of faith and commitment to the values for which we have always struggled.

Today we mourn, tomorrow we vote.

Death in Ankara, and beyond

There was horrible news out of Ankara today, with the brazen assassination of Russian Ambassador Andrey Karlov. Here are a few immediate thoughts:

1. Whatever war crimes are bing committed in Russia's name in Syria and Ukraine, or in cyberspace, the sanctity of diplomatic culture underpins any hope for resolving and preventing such atrocities – now and in the future.

2. Having worked closely with Russian diplomats over the past 25 years, this also hits close to home.

3. Russian President Vladimir Putin's alliance with the Orthodox Church is a primary source for his support within Russia and among other lands in the region, including Greece, Serbia, and parts of Ukraine. The ultimate prize for many of those faithful will be the former Constantinople, ancient seat of the Byzantine (Orthodox) Church. Whatever criminal motivation lay behind today's attack, the long-term battle for Turkey and for modern-day Istanbul should not be ignored.

Istanbul remains home to Hagia Sophia, the monumental cathedral converted centuries ago into a mosque and celebrated today as a landmark museum. Turkey's proximity to Syria, where Russian forces have rained death and destruction by order of magnitude since U.S. Election Day, and Turkey's vulnerability to refugee flows and Kurdish insurgents, raise the specter of Russian designs on the Orthodox prize (and of course, strategic access to the Black Sea and beyond). – Conspiratorial, for sure, but nothing is too far-fetched when it involves Kremlin.

My heart goes out to Russian friends and colleagues, even as it bleeds for the innocents being starved and slaughtered in Aleppo and other lesser known cities across Syria. Social media can often lead us astray, and my prayer today is that cooler heads will prevail on all sides.

Note: I know I've missed many items the past few months, but events were frenetic and distractions abundant. Since the U.S. election, I again have the distance and perspective to share some more developed thoughts and – hopefully – to generate some constructive discussion.

Trump, Brexit, and that 'power to the people' myth

Across blogs and social media, and on the air, it's very common to find pundits and screen warriors praising populist rejections of globalization as important "wakeup calls" and breaths of fresh air. Such claims are either deliberately misleading or dangerously uninformed.

As with the late Meir Kahane and other demagogues, Nigel Farage and Donald Trump -- and the Tea Party -- can sometimes hit on some of the very real shortcomings of our society and in our global order, and the solutions they offer are both popular and counter-productive, and ones in which they themselves probably don't even believe.

We know for a fact that the Brexit and Trump campaigns have routinely been lying outright and inciting violence just to gain power.

Are we serious about power to the people, about ensuring everyone has a voice and everyone gets a fair shake? The "NRA" is disproportionately funded by the gun manufacturers and not by citizens seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights. The defense industry plunks down millions in political contributions and hires the very generals and government officials who decide where to buy new systems. The pharmaceutical industry hires Committee chairs mere days after they push through favorable legislation.

As long as the rich can keep using their government-subsidized windfalls to drive more legislation and regulation in their favor, the 98 percent really stand no chance.

Why not start by fixing the bipartisan campaign finance reform championed by Senators McCain and Feingold? Why not assign Congressional redistricting to commissions of career professionals? Anyone who thinks Trump would ever act in the interests of the people is naïve enough to make the elites of both parties look prescient.

Let's watch how the British handle Brexit's increasingly real consequences, including the buyer's remorse in just the first few days since the vote. Now imagine what America and the world will feel like on November 9, or next January 20, should Trump actually manage to get elected.

Bernie-Come-Lately does no favors for Mideast peace

Bernie Sanders' recent missteps on Israel and Gaza are disturbing for a few reasons.

First, he was asked about the topic because he's repeatedly mentioned his concerns about Israeli policies and use of force. A serious politician would have known the difference between 10,000 killed and 10,000 injured Palestinians, and a principled politician would have accepted being corrected (after literally asking for it) -- yet Senator Sanders then countered it was even more than 10,000, and implied they were all innocent. 

On other occasions, I've expressed my own concerns about Israeli actions, including in Gaza. Sen. Sanders is the most visible critic of such policies, and by implication he's the test case for a progressive solution to the Palestinian issue. The fact that he pushes so hard on Israel's buttons without even a sense of the scale of the conflict undermines the credibility for the rest of us, who really put ourselves on the line with friends and the powers that be.

On a more personal note, I've been seeing the relentless defensive tactics of Sen. Sanders and his apologists, most directly (and also directed at me) on social media. This includes questioning my sophistication, challenging my motivations, misrepresenting my arguments, and dismissing the relevance or significance of The Bern's inaccurate, self-righteous and counter-productive complaint against Israel. I've been accused of being an AIPAC stooge and not caring about Palestinian lives, all because I refuse to be satisfied with the Sanders retort that the number wasn’t what’s important…

Accountability, it seems, is only to be demanded of those remaining outside the Sanders camp. The left-wing peace movement is rallying behind him, especially on this point, which unfortunately suggests that -- like Sen. Sanders -- these groups are more interested in scoring points with their home base rather than with convincing anyone else, or with effecting substantive change over the long haul. 

Not that I'm shocked by any of this, but it would have been nice to see some statesmanship.

Instead of denying he's naked on Iran, Bibi should put on some clothes

As much as I've tried to avoid it, the Netanyahu speech flap keeps festering and snowballing at the same time. In the mass media. 

Everyone involved is a calculating politician, so let's not pretend otherwise. Let's not pretend the White House was entirely above-board, and let's not pretend that the speech and its timing aren't more about Republican and Likud politics than about Iran's nuclear program. The idea that the looming deadline for nuclear negotiations and Israel's upcoming elections just happen to coincide, ignores the fact that Netanyahu decides when to call elections. Even FoxNews has criticized the idea. 

It's no longer about putting some pressure on the negotiations, so they fail. By being so obvious and over-the-top, Netanyahu has rebalanced the scales in Iran's favor, making it incrementally harder for the Western powers to exact the same concessions from Iran.

Democrats who rank high on AIPAC's friends' list are considering whether to skip Netanyahu's speech altogether. In all the decades of U.S.-Israel partnership and tensions, that's a first, it wasn't inevitable, and it hurts Israel more than it hurts Obama, Boehner, or even -- and especially -- Iran. As for Netanyahu's hometown audience back in Israel, we'll have to see whether he gains more votes than he loses, especially with right-wing contenders like Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman trying to outdo him on the Paris attacks and Jordan's fight against ISIS.

At this late stage, IMHO, the best thing for everyone, including Netanyahu and the nation he leads -- and for the case against Iran -- would be for the PM to step back, apologize for falling into petty politics, and wait until after elections to schedule an official visit. Given that even Netanyahu's confidant and Washington envoy has already passed the buck, I have no illusions this will happen. But then Israel's national anthem is entitled "The Hope"...

Obama's low-risk, low-yield Israel visit

Any visit by the U.S. President is a big deal, especially to a country like Israel that follows every hiccup in Washington with great interest and anxiety. But from the American side, it will be more show than tell, with little chance of candor or contention. 

President Obama's upcoming visit to Israel will not be launching or leading to any new ventures into Middle East peacemaking. Both he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are still getting their teams in place after each was just re-elected. And there's still plenty of institutional memory in the Obama White House to understand what Hillary Clinton learned from her husband's experience, and from her own as recent Secretary of State: Netanyahu is just not that guy.

Thanks to Netanyahu -- and many Israelis evidently are grateful for this -- Israel's 15 minutes of relevance are now up, at least for this political era. By relevance, I mean, as far as making the Middle East easier for the United States; being considered part of Washington's decision team along with other allies like the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Japan, NATO, et al. Ironically, the closest partnership in the U.S.-Israeli relationship is now between Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and newly confirmed Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, whose nomination was almost torpedoed by Netanyahu's true friends in Washington.

Obama tried to move the Israeli and Palestinian sides back to where they were just before Netanyahu, with regular talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, but to no avail. Obama even earned himself lectures from Netanyahu, in his own White House. Rather than looking ridiculous for trying to get a full-fledged Israeli settlement freeze before Netanyahu completed sidelining the Palestinian moderates, Obama instead can focus on Syria and Iran. By his response to those two imminent threats, it's Netanyahu who often looks a little silly -- complaining of U.S. appeasement one day, affirming Washington's and even the UN's strategies the very next day.

The President knows to tell Israelis -- and Netanyahu -- just what they want to hear: Great job, "never again" (Iran, Holocaust), number-one ally anywhere, got your back, Iron Dome, Am Yisrael Chai. Meet some students, collect Presidential medal, and board Air Force One. It appears he won't even have to brave an address to the newly sworn-in, untested and traditionally testy Knesset.

As Obama begins his second and final term, he still has to contend with Afghanistan, Syria and Iran in the Middle East, plus Russia, China and other challenges worldwide. Domestically, he faces his biggest headaches on just about every possible front. With no substantive Watergate-style scandal that needs distracting by Henry Kissinger, there would be little reason to devote precious political capital to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations even if it looked like Israel and the Palestinians were available. And they are not.

A few weeks ago, I waved a yellow flag over the notion that assigning moderate Tzipi Livni to shepherd the peace process was anything more than a cosmetic bluff by Netanyahu. As Justice Minister and head of her own new party, Livni will be in no position to take any meaningful peace initiatives, especially since the ruling Likud Party will be keeping the Foreign Affairs portfolio for itself. This means anything she tries will be subject to interference and veto by Avigdor Lierberman -- likely to return as Foreign Minister -- and the Prime Minister himself. When Lieberman filled in for Netanyahu to deliver Israel's speech to the annual opening of the United Nations General Assembly, he spent much of his time justifying population transfer -- 'nuf said?

Netanyahu will get to impress his hometown crowd, and Obama will have kicked off his second term by silencing many of his critics from within the pro-Israel (and Jewish establishment). If something unforeseen suddenly creates an opening for renewed peace efforts, Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry can always answer the call as needed -- as long as they don't think they'll be wasting their time. There's been enough of that already.

Don't worry, Livni will not be making peace

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's choice of his political foe Tzipi Livni to be his new Justice Minister, and to oversee the Palestinian peace track, suggests there will be little meaningful Israeli effort on that front in the foreseeable future. Picking Livni to "run" the peace process gives him a six-seat edge in assembling the rest of his coalition, and it keeps Livni preoccupied with an issue that most Israelis now consider secondary.

During his past four years as Prime Minister, regardless of shortcomings on the Palestinian side, Netanyahu has shown little urgency or enthusiasm for re-engaging them or shoring up the moderate faction led by Mahmoud Abbas. Although he lost Knesset seats in the latest election, this had little to do with the peace process, which only ranked as a priority with those voting for... Tzipi Livni. And Livni scored worse than expected at the polls.

Livni does not enjoy Netanyahu's confidence, and she now controls only six seats through her new Tnu'ah (Movement) Party -- meaning Netanyahu has little to lose by ignoring or undermining anything she does. Even better, it helps keep any of his more powerful competitors (especially the pragmatic Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid) from using their significant capital to push the peace envelope.

Ironically, those who voted for Livni because they wanted a resumption of substantive peace talks with the Palestinians would do better if Netanyahu placed the negotiations under a trusted ally or lieutenant, rather than an arch-rival who commands only six out of the total 120 seats in the Knesset. 

And the Justice Minister, really? From Camp David to Oslo (which included the treaty with Jordan), any effective peace process has been run through the Prime Minister's Office and the Foreign Ministry. In his previous government, Netanyahu handled the peace process on his own, without involving then-Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, without any progress. Now he proposes to run the peace process out of the Justice Ministry, which has little infrastructure or disposition for running international negotiations outside of strictly legal matters and always in collaboration with the Foreign Ministry. 

Alternatively, if Netanyahu truly cared about getting back on track toward a two-state solution rather than leveraging his coalition strategy, he could have prevailed upon his predecessor and recent Defense Minister Ehud Barak to stay on with the peace portfolio. Barak knows all the players, and generally behaved himself (at least by Israeli standards) under Netanyahu until last month's elections when he left the Knesset. He enjoys the trust of President Obama and his team, which has eluded Netanyahu. And with no Knesset seats of his own, Barak would be exclusively answerable to Netanyahu and immune from the temptations of coalition infighting.

What does Livni get from this deal? A former Foreign Minister herself, she gets to try for results with the Palestinians, against uncertain yet formidable odds. Perhaps more importantly, she gets to be in the government, which is the best consolation prize for someone who thinks she should be the Prime Minister and got kicked out of leadership in her former Kadima Party. Knowing that with six seats she will not be leading the opposition this time around, Livni has little reason not to join the government.

Most likely, Netanyahu won't even need Livni's Knesset votes to maintain his ultimate coalition in the long term. He can use her early entry to the government to punish or at least pressure Yair Lapid, head of the centrist Yesh Atid and its 19 seats. Most of Lapid's voters expected Netanyahu to be Prime Minister, and trusted Lapid and his top deputies to be their voice WITHIN the government, so it's almost inconceivable he won't end up joining the coalition.

Having Livni on board now also helps Netanyahu prepare for President Obama's March visit, though a high-stakes Presidential delegation is a risky test-run for inter-agency cooperation between the Justice and Foreign Ministries on the Israeli side, and the White House, State Department and Secret Service on the U.S. side. Beyond logistics, the optics are better if a credible peacemaker (or peace-attempter) is on hand for Obama's visit -- especially since Netanyahu will not be greeting the President with any significant openings on the Palestinian front. Not now, not later.

Some Jews don't like Chuck Hagel... so?

President Obama has just won re-election. As some Republican Senators have acknowledged, "elections have consequences." One consequence of this election was that, despite the best efforts of Jewish Republicans in and out of community leadership roles, the President won a healthy margin of the Electoral College -- so the pro-Netanyahu wing of the pro-Israel (Jewish) community has political credibility issues. Plus the President showed unflinching solidarity (including Iron Dome) with Israel during last month's Gaza conflict with Hamas.

I do not know if Chuck Hagel would be the best choice for Secretary of Defense, but barring any major disclosures or failings, that choice is the President's to make. A Vietnam veteran and former Republican Senator, Hagel is widely respected in military and policy circles, and his professional qualifications seem fine. The Senate Republicans already forced out the President's putative nominee for Secretary of State, Susan Rice, and stopping one of their own former colleagues now would be  bit much. This is not going to be an easy fight, especially if it's on behalf of an ally that's already getting too much play in Washington politics.

A winning strategy for Jewish leaders is ideally to be part of the solution, and not to pick fights with Presidents unless Israel's survival is directly threatened. The best case against Hagel seems to be that he's not a bleeding-heart Zionist; he supports U.S. engagement on Mideast peace; he was one of the few Senators who routinely avoided signing onto pro forma "Dear Colleague" letters in support of Israeli interests; and, the same people who slam President Obama's positions on Israel also slam Hagel.

Interestingly, the Jewish establishment leaped to support Susan Rice, however briefly, because she has been so stalwart in support of Israel as the President's Ambassador to the United Nations. Many were concerned when she was first nominated four years ago, because her worldview seemed closer to all those leftists calling on Israel to get with the 21st century, drop all the nationalism sentiment, and cut a quick deal with the Palestinians. So maybe her eyes were opened, or maybe she was serving President Obama and advancing HIS agenda. I would expect a Secretary Hagel to do no less.

Defense cooperation with Israel is better than ever. Ever. We're still taking casualties in Afghanistan and fighting a global commando war against Al Qaeda. I voted for Barack Obama last month, and so did most Americans -- and two-thirds of Jews -- who went to the polls. Standing in the way of his nominee because he's not Joe Lieberman is just a bad idea, and one my Jewish Republican friends are eagerly pushing.

The wannabe Jewish vote, à la Bibi

There continues to be an astounding fascination with the Jewish vote, mostly within the Jewish community. But it was never all about us, and this year that's especially so. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reduced himself politically to a mere appendage of Jewish Republicans and big-money campaign donors. Even Israelis are noticing now. As for the rest of us, perhaps we can start getting back to reality-based politics, here and in the Middle East, and not be quite so proud of our community's king-making powers.

HOW JEWS VOTE

Jewish Republican activists may console themselves in the delusion that the Jews voting for Obama aren't REAL Jews, since Israel ranks only fourth or lower in deciding their votes. But then, most of the 30 percent who voted for Romney were voting because they are REPUBLICANS. Even in 1992, the sharply antagonistic President George Bush still managed to scare up 11 percent of the Jewish vote in his defense against the Democrat Bill Clinton.

The Jewish vote is clearly not in play, despite a marginal drop in its overwhelming Democratic bias. The vocal bulk of community advocacy organizations claiming -- however tenuously -- to speak on behalf of American Jewry had previously indicated their genuine or contrived concern with various policies and actions of the Obama administration, often inspired by statements or murmurings emanating from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

In defense of the Electoral College, briefly

Every four years, there's a proliferation of critiques against the Electoral College. I have a few thoughts on this, followed by a brief explanation of how the current system works.

In parliamentary systems, the head of government (usually the Prime Minister) and often the head of state (President or Chancellor) are determined not by direct election but by a parliamentary vote. The most direct form of democracy operates in Switzerland, where most major policy questions are decided by plebiscite (basically the same as a referendum). That works, as long as there's no need to account for minority rights or legislative and policy expertise.

If we got rid of the Electoral College, most likely Congress would fill that intermediary role, and given gerrymandering and incumbency factors, that vote would be significantly more skewed from the popular will than a state-by-state winner-take-all system. Last week's hurricane has meant that many thousands of would-be voters were not even counted in the popular vote, introducing another advantage of the Electoral College as is. I think our current system works best.

ELECTORAL COLLEGE -- in brief: The EC mechanism awards each state one vote per Congressional seat (i.e., two for the Senate and however many for the House of Representatives), totaling 538 (including three for Washington, DC). In nearly all the states, whichever Presidential candidate wins the majority in that state wins all the electoral votes from that state.

In rare cases, the candidate who wins the majority of total votes across the country fails to win the Electoral College vote. Additionally, the major party candidates tend to ignore the states where they enjoy guaranteed majorities and focus on the handful where the vote could go either way. People feel left out...

Confessions of an Election Day volunteer

Election day is a microcosm of the whole race, and our own individual decisions can reflect what we know and what we value.

I love helping out on campaigns. I'm not talking about collecting the big checks or taking out the full-page ads from behind a comfy desk. I mean going out and getting voters to turn out, one by one. Picking up and dropping off volunteers, especially the union stalwarts who just show up -- no matter what. Knocking on doors and reminding people. And even dealing with the hard-working kings for a day, the election day field organizers (having been one myself on occasion). Senior Hill staffers and college students all popping in to do whatever it takes, with rank and privilege irrelevant. Well, ALMOST irrelevant.

Back in 1988, I spent several weeks on my first New Hampshire Primary campaign. Very long days, late-night beers, and frigid nights sleeping on a succession of floors and sofas in the homes of local supporters. Waking up every day long before dawn, feeling soooo cold. Brrrrr! Fun, and fulfilling, right down to pouring wiper fluid across the windshield just to get some visibility. Going door-to-door in waist-high snow, and driving around on streets with a permanent layer of unmelting, compacted snow. Real enthusiasm, and seemingly endless energy. But we get older and -- just possibly -- wiser.