Within the next twelve months, some of you will make decisions that could affect your respective futures and, maybe, the rest of your lives. Those actions will surround the presumed impeachment and subsequent trial of the current President of the United States, Donald Trump. Others will additionally have to deal with their consciences, as well as be answerable to the American people and, especially, loved ones. Most of you have taken oaths to “preserve and protect” the Constitution and people of the United States. In that regard, some of you have already violated your oaths. You know who you are and, I will leave that problem for you to deal with so long as you remember that you probably have a chance to make things right.

What’s at stake? Not only the security of the country, but maybe the future of humanity. The President of the United States controls the keys to nuclear destruction and many of  the variables surrounding other conflicts. Even if you have doubts about climate change, is it worth taking a chance on planet survival for the sake of your career and/or obeisance to a false prophet? Most of you are smart enough to know it isn’t, yet you act as if there are no existential threats. And there are so many lesser threats out there. Yet, you act selfishly and, sometimes, beyond reason, largely for a belief that your actions are “vital” to preserving your careers. Instead of explaining to the people you serve what’s at stake, you cower behind false platitudes and non-sensical behavior.

From an international perspective, Trump’s actions have been extremely hazardous to American security. Just recently, he renounced the American commitment to support the Kurds, our allies fighting against ISIS. Such actions have already resulted in countless deaths. American foreign policy has always rested on our word. Support for NATO and our other alliances rests on guarantees of assistance when necessary. In terms of Vietnam, if there was any reason for the sacrifices our country made, it was because of promises to protect our allies in Southeast Asia. In the Middle East, our promise over the last seventy-one years to come to the security assistance of Israel, has been the basis for our unofficial alliance with that country. Surely, Israeli decision-makers are wondering if they will share a similar fate as the Kurds under a Trump Presidency. In turn, each of our allies with their own nuclear weapons are now wondering if their independent use is more likely because American commitments are unworthy. I could go on, but ask yourselves what foreign policies Trump has supported that have left our country safer?

Domestically, American deficits have never been higher and trade policies are inexplicable. Racism has led to massacres and new levels of hate evident throughout American society. Wage inequality and identity politics have become pernicious components of daily life. Is American society operating at a more salutary level than it did four years ago?

Finally, in terms of values, religious and otherwise. The President of the United States is a racist, misogynist, and pathological liar. He is—and always been—all about himself. This makes him dangerous and certainly not a model for anyone’s children to look up to. Because he responds viscerally to the world around him, he will, eventually, explode. This is an individual who puts children in cages and then asks why people question his actions.

Everyone, please consider your oaths of office and personal responsibility to your country. You likely know what’s right, and history will judge you accordingly.

I was first introduced to Elijah Cummings in 1990. He was serving in the Maryland legislature and I had recently arrived in Baltimore (from Houston), to become the Executive Director of the Baltimore Jewish Council (BJC). The then Congressman, Kweisei Mfume, provided the introduction. None of us would be aware of how many times our paths would cross over the next twenty years.

Among my duties in Houston was staffing the Mickey Leland Kibbutzim Program, which sent young people from Mickey’s Congressional District to Israel for six weeks each summer. Mickey had travelled to Israel a number of times and fell in love with its people and history. He believed that the Kibbutz social system provided many lessons that could prove beneficial to children going to school or living in his district ( A place very similar in economic and ethnic variables to Maryland’s Seventh District).

My initial impression of Elijah was not very telling. Compared to Kweisei, he was taciturn and somewhat distant. He was in a hurry to move on. The years passed, and when Kweisei became Director of the NAACP, Elijah ran for his seat and won.

Until this change in office, my hopes about creating something in Baltimore similar to the Leland Program, went unfulfilled. Congressmen Mfume and Cardin had tried something locally, but the community dynamics didn’t work and the effort ended after a few years. Now we had an opportunity to try again.

A discussion was held with Elijah and his eyes lit-up. He loved the idea. We discussed variations of the concept, and funders were sought. It quickly came together and became the Elijah Cummings Youth Program in Israel (ECYP). After a few years of relative success, the program was expanded to include a strong, locally-operated leadership training component. Eventually, ECYP,  now in existence for more than twenty years, succeeded beyond expectations, educating its graduates in some of the finest colleges and universities in the country.

The primary reason why the program worked as well as it did was Elijah. Most of all, he cared. Attending almost every potential participant interview, he always made sure that the interview committee viewed applicants in their best light. Following their summer experience, the Congressmen took care that program graduates secured post-college advice and, eventually, post-college education or quality employment opportunities.

Congressman Cummings was constantly educating himself about Jews in general, those residing in Baltimore and in Israel. I remember him once being astounded when he learned that Jews in a given community didn’t commonly know each other. Israeli society was a constant source of wonderment and questions. That the Israelis and their Arab neighbors were still in conflict after more than seventy years, was a tragedy in his eyes. Always, when he felt perturbed about people or events, you heard that familiar refrain: “We/they can do better than this.” He was usually right.

The Congressman was “done too soon.” His indefatigable belief in people and their need to do what was right, was his legacy. He may be gone, but he’s watching over us; his “oversight” has just moved from Congress to a higher, more special dimension.

For Jews, it is a time of reflection. For others, please reflect on the questions below. As always, I am happy to participate in a dialogue concerning any of the issues raised.

—-Congress is the branch of government responsible for handling trade legislation and disputes arising therefrom. Given Trump’s trade wars with allies and perceived enemies, and their damaging effect on our economy, why does Congress remain passively acquiescent?

—-Congressional stasis in the face of blatant corruption from Trump and members of his administration are ongoing concerns. In the face of a President that has ignored subpoenas requesting testimony and documents, how long will the American people remain relatively undemanding and mute in their response?

—-Are the Democrats prepared to deal with another vacancy on the Supreme Court in light of Mitch McConnell’s questionable actions against an Obama appointee four years ago?

—-In 1933, Adolf Hitler became the elected Chancellor of Germany. Today, we have an elected President President who has violated democratic norms and ignores the Constitution. Will the Americans—like the Germans in 1933—remain passive should Donald Trump seek to take extra-legal action to remain in office?

—-Is enough of an effort being taken to defeat significant numbers of congressional Republicans in 2020?

—-Is the Electoral College a vestigial organ of our Constitution and political system? If so, can it be abolished without diminishing the electoral power of American minorities?

—-Why do the Democrats remain so transparently inoperative as the President and his enablers get away with their transgressions? Party leadership was slow to push impeachment and have only hesitantly used the courts to stop Republican “stonewalling.”

—-In contrast to the civil rights and Vietnam eras, Democrats have rarely catalyzed public opinion to battle Trumpian attacks on our democracy. Where are the public marches and demonstrations?

—-The American business community is in the midst of trade wars and challenges that, over time, have the potential to severely harm the global economy. Yet, for the most part, they readily accept Trumpian short-term benefits despite grim future economic projections coming from economists. Why?

—-Trump received about 25%of the Hispanic vote in 2016. Given the President’s anti-Hispanic policies and rhetoric, how can this be explained and what steps are being taken to counter it in 2020?

—-The “Executioner” of Washington (aka Donald Trump), has now sentenced hundreds, if not thousands of Kurds to their deaths. Despite all our rhetoric about “Never Again,” will the American people hold him accountable and help stop the violence that their President initiated?

Does Donald Trump exhibit traitorous behavior? Do many of his Enablers also fit that category? The evidence indicates yes. What is going on?

For nearly three years, the United States has dealt with the question of collusion between the Trump campaign  and the Russians during the 2016 election. More recently, Trump and Senate Majority Leader “Moscow” Mitch McConnell’s relations with the Russians and, particularly, their President, Vladimir Putin, has suggested suspicious and surreptitious behavior. Now it’s Trump and the Ukrainians. The evidence is in and it’s damning.

Last week, as the story continues to play-out, it was revealed that a government “Whistleblower” formally alerted the Inspector General of the Department of National Intelligence that Trump had requested—on more than one occasion—for the new President of the Ukraine to pursue an investigation of Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, for corruption in his dealings with specified Ukranian economic and political leaders. Given that Biden seems to be Trump’s most formidable opponent for President, along with the fact that promised American military aid to Ukraine was suddenly withheld prior to the request, there are certainly new grounds for investigating a possible offer of a quid-pro-quo: “join with me to assist my re-election and you will get the promised delayed aid.” Of course, Republicans in Congress and Trump’s other Enablers are, without evidence to the contrary, defending him.

Of course, given the fact that Trump’s “personal” attorney, Rudy Giuliani has, for many months, both publicly and privately been trying to pressure Ukraine’s leaders to investigate Biden, and there exists a just revealed admission by the President that he and Rudy were involved, what we may be seeing is nothing more than an audition for a new version of the film “Dumb and Dumber.”

But, that ignores reality—Trump’s track record accords with both being stupid and perfidious. Asking a foreign country to assist with your campaign is certainly stupid (especially when government officials usually listen to and transcribe a president’s conversations with foreign leaders). Being dumb is also not an excuse for treasonous behavior. Additionally, Republican defenders who collude in obstructing the truth from being revealed, are accessories to what is likely criminal and/or treasonous behavior.

As more admissions are made and facts revealed, Trump may get Congressional assent to the impeachment he so readily deserves. But there is another solution—vote Trump and Congressional Republicans out of office. At least in terms of the President, there is no reason why both processes—electoral defeat and impeachment cannot proceed during the year up to the 2020 election. Since Trump is unlikely to be convicted by a majority Republican Senate, why not? The fact that he will have been impeached is what matters; the election can take care of the rest if the voters respond. That is likely to be the existential challenge that we must all face in the days ahead.

Addendum: Public release of the so-called “Whistle-Blower” complaint,  provides further evidence of Trump’s disloyal behavior. Now, thanks to this this new information, Attorney General Barr, White House lawyers, et al, should soon be regarded—at the minimum—as participants in the same national security cover-up.

Trump should negotiate with America’s foreign enemies. After all, when you have matters to settle, especially with those whom you have significant disputes, personal discussion is mandatory. Especially if an existential issue is at stake, you sit and talk regardless of whether or not some sort of  renewed credibility is granted to either party because face-to-face conversations are underway. But, to negotiate doesn’t mean to embrace. When Roosevelt and then Truman met with Soviet leader Josef Stalin, World War II was being waged. Few cared about providing Stalin additional credibility as a result of negotiations. Stalin didn’t become anyone’s best friend.

In the 1990’s, public discussion centered on the propriety of  discussions between Israeli leaders and representatives from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), primarily its terrorist head, Yasir Arafat. The question of legitimizing a terrorist leader responsible for the killing of hundreds (if not thousands), of civilians, was front-and-center. Once a major agreement was reached (1993), the matter of a face-to-face signing ceremony at the White House between Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, was also heavily debated. In the end, they met and signed the agreement.

Both President Trump and his Israeli counterpart, Benjamin Netanyahu, have met with a variety of tyrants, including leaders from North Korea (only Trump), Hungary, Poland, and Turkey. But, context is everything. In this situation it could be argued that by negotiating, Trump and Kim Jung-Un are trying to reduce an existential threat to both nations, present because nuclear weapons are involved. In the other cases, the same arguments cannot usually be made.

What about Trump and Putin? Both men are authoritarian in nature, but only the latter has few, if any, legal and political restraints. The Russian leader, for the most part, makes decisions on his own, a position that Trump clearly relishes. When and if you cross Putin, he is not someone to take lightly; assassination and other forms of violence are used for purposes of intimidation and revenge.

People fear Putin. Trump is a coward and buffoon. Nevertheless, the political and strategic ramifications of their strange relationship, along with the way the American leader acts around brutal dictators, damages the U.S. in terms of a perceived diminution in the reliability of the United States as a bastion of democracy and as a country that keeps its promises. Consequently, in terms of American national security, both friends and foes wonder what we would actually do when a crisis arose, regardless of any signed agreement or treaty? Inevitably, nations that traditionally depend on America for security assistance will seek their own means of  protection (e.g. nuclear weapons), if the United States is no longer regarded as a dependable ally. We have been lucky so far. Our word and our treaty commitments have not yet been severely tested. Let’s hope that remains the situation until at least November 2020.

Not long ago, a colleague suggested that everyone on the planet is, one way or another, responsible for climate change. My response: yes, but. Everyone may litter. We all fail to recycle or dispose of waste improperly. But, only one person—Donald Trump—had(s) the power to irreparably harm the world by removing the United States from participation in the international agreement to reduce global warming.

In the United States, officials at all levels of government are usually the ones making impactful decisions on climate change.  Collectively, we are able to pressure lawmakers but, in the end, it is the respective decision-maker that accrues responsibility for what they do. In those countries in which there is authoritarian control and/or scant popular involvement in making decisions, the responsibility is usually even more centered and obvious.

Scientists of various countries warn us that we have about 11-15 years left beyond which the ravages to our climate can be stabilized. That is not much time. It is most of an 8 year American Presidential cycle. In the U.S., horrendous fires out west, an increase in the number of tornados, serious floods throughout the country, species extinction, and predictions of more evidence of nature’s wrath, should leave us all concerned and fearful. Yet, during this early stage of the 2020 election cycle, only one Democratic Party candidate for President (who just dropped out of the race), Governor Jay Inslee of Washington State, had focused their campaign on the real, existential threat of global warming.

In the last few weeks, Democratic Party candidates for President held two debates. They were a sad spectacle. Those on that stage, maybe with the exception of Joe Biden, failed to focus on what’s important to most of the American people: economic and physical security, i.e. quality of life issues. Instead, the candidates were in an attack mode, even focusing on the “failures” of President Obama. Two weeks later, back-to-back mass shootings tragically brought attention to what really matters: the need to restore sanity and humanity to people’s lives. That will only come about with the defeat of Donald Trump and his Congressional enablers in 2020.

Climate change, along with the passage of rational gun policies, economic inequality, racism, and a foreign policy that is global in orientation, are the issues people care about. A failure to provide clear and rational alternatives on these matters is a failure of collective responsibility by candidates for office. In turn, we, the American people, must demand that they do so.

Last weekend, The Washington Post provided a superb, in-depth and balanced explanation of Donald Trump’s current relationship with American Jews (“Jews Differ on Trump’s remarks against ‘Squad,’ 7/27/19) written by Michelle Boorstein and Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

In addition to the fine commentary, some additional information would round-out their analysis. For instance, ever since the President’s daughter converted to Judaism at the time of her marriage, Trump has used that event as a salutary political tool in his relationship with Jews, the Evangelical Christian community (who are fervent supporters of Israel and Trump), and the Israeli government. Unfortunately, we rarely hear from the President about anything Jews traditionally believe, especially the worth of every human being and an obligation to treat all people with respect. Instead, the President and his Republican allies have found common cause with a right-wing Israeli government that treats significant portions of its population with anything but equality and esteem. Such policies and attitudes have come at the cost of diluting the essence of Judaism and the reinforcement of Republican attempts to move Israel from a bi-partisan to partisan issue on the American political spectrum. How and why?

First, Judaism. For myself and other socially-conscious Jews, a foundation of our beliefs is the Jewish sage Hillel’s injunction: “That which is hateful to you, do not unto others. That is all of the law. The rest is commentary.” Organized American Jewry’s too-often avoidance of that dictum when it comes to Trump and his administration’s policies and actions, demonstrates anew hypocrisy at its worst.

In terms of Israel and the tradition of American political bi-partisanship, when Republican Congressional leaders invited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to address Congress in 2015, they fractured the implicit understanding that such invitations would always be coordinated with the President and the opposition party’s leadership. This was purposeful, primarily designed to highlight Republican opposition to the Obama administration’s nuclear arms deal with Iran. Major Jewish organizations fell into line with the Republicans (and the Israeli government) and, for the first time in its history, Israel arose as a major partisan issue.

Since 2015, Trump’s moves regarding Israel have been designed to placate Jewish Republican donors (e.g. Sheldon Adelson), and Evangelicals. The Israeli Prime minister has continued to praise Trump’s actions in return for a likewise response from the President. Correspondingly, AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and other like-minded Jewish organizations have, in their general silence, acceded to Trump’s policies regardless of their racism and disregard of social justice.

With younger American Jews already indicating less support for Israel, the Republicans are increasingly the home for right-wing Jews and Evangelicals. Although too many of  the President’s policies and action’s are racist and, as noted above, the opposite of traditional Jewish beliefs and traditions, the administration’s unqualified support for Israel has been wrongly adopted as the sine qua non for judging its alliance with American Jewry. To accept that equation will result in the corruption of what it means to be a Jew in America. In the end, moving along such a path will prove counterproductive to the security and safety of  America, Israel, and American Jewry.

ADDENDUM: I CANNOT FINISH THIS POST AND IGNORE THE MASSACRES THAT TOOK PLACE THIS WEEKEND IN EL PASO AND DAYTON. IN TERMS OF THE FORMER, THE KILLER BOLDLY STATED WHY HE MURDERED INNOCENTS: HISPANIC IMMIGRATION’S “THREAT” TO AMERICA. WHEN A PRESIDENT CALLS HISPANICS RAPISTS, AND IS CONSTANTLY TALKING ABOUT THE “THREAT” OF IMMIGRANTS, RACISTS CAN AND DO RESPOND IN THE MOST VIOLENT OF WAYS. WORDS CAN BE TRIGGERS TO ACTION. THIS PRESIDENT SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. 

It all starts with hate. No one is born with that trait as part of their genetic makeup. We learn it ( probably from our parents and/or friends), we then go on to either nurture the hate or it diminishes on its own as we get older and more knowledgeable. But, of course, in some people it lives on and becomes more powerful. In the rare few, that hatred is the result of an event that happens later on in their life. In some cases, history reveals, the hate becomes psychotic and dangerous.

Whatever the cause, it is rare that hatred—individually or collectively—assumes the dimension(s) of a “crime against humanity,” an action or set of actions first applied at the Nuremberg Trials against German defendants following World War II. In its most basic definition, Wikipedia states: “Crimes against humanity are certain acts that are deliberately committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian or an identifiable part of a civilian population.”

By definition then, Donald Trump and members of is administration (Enablers were included at Nuremberg and should be included now), have committed and are continuing to commit crimes against humanity. Specifically, these are actions targeted upon Muslims, Hispanics, and other people of color. To incite hatred against such individuals based upon ethnic and and racial criteria, is to do as Nazi officials did against Jews and others. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, his Congressional allies, and administration cohorts don’t order people to their deaths. Rather, their actions provoke others to do harm and allow people to be mistreated and threatened. The historical analogies are there; to remain quiet in the face of evil is to perpetrate evil.

Beyond the attacks against racial and religious minorities, Trump and company are responsible for pursuing an ongoing and existential crime against humanity—-the purposeful ignoring of climate change. Global warming leading to massive floods, species extinction, horrendous wildfires, etc., are upon us and will only get worse unless something is done. Our children and grandchildren will be most severely affected. Trump, on this issue alone, must be stopped. Factious Democratic Party leaders—beware. Stop the in-fighting and playing to Trump’s winning strategy of divide-and-conquer. The horror needs to cease with a massive Republican defeat across the board in 2020, at all levels of government. That is what is most important. Otherwise, there won’t be much of a country (or planet) left to rebuild four years from now.

Pay attention to 1948: lessons for our upcoming Presidential election are there to be learned. Harry Truman was President. Selected by Franklin Roosevelt to be his merely-acceptable candidate for the Vice-Presidency four years earlier, he succeeded to the top spot upon FDR’s death in April 1945. During his first three years in office, he had to decide the most momentous of issues, among them bringing World War II to a close on acceptable terms; use of an Atomic Bomb against Japan; massive aid to Europe and Turkey to stave off Soviet threats; a Russian blockade of Berlin by the Russians; whether to support the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine; massive labor unrest at home; housing and job shortages for returning troops; widespread discrimination towards people of color; and on and on.

Truman had held a number of political offices before becoming a U.S. Senator and then Vice-President. Never attending college, he was a voracious reader, especially of history and biography. Common sense and a desire to always “do what was right,” guided him in his decision-making. Those were probably the two variables most responsible for his decency and success. Yet, by 1947, following congressional elections a year earlier that went against the Democrats, few gave him much chance of being elected President in 1948.

While this very typical man bore little resemblance to Donald Trump in terms of their respective biographies, today’s political climate bears similarities. For example, the country remains uneasy, both economically and politically. The American people, for the most part, look to their leaders for solutions yet perceive individuals not up to the job.

Trump, as polls reveal, is highly unpopular among most Americans, yet maintains a core of supporters comprising about 40% of the electorate. Truman’s popularity was more episodic, but few gave him a chance of success, especially against the perennial Republican candidate, Thomas E. Dewey,  the Governor of New York, who was defeated by Roosevelt in 1944.

In 2016, most people considered the possible election of Donald Trump as a bad joke. Truman was not perceived in the same way, but he was regarded as too “common” and unsuited to continue in office. Well, in both cases we know how the respective election turned out. Why?

Harry Truman’s success in 1948 was the result, in many ways, of an electorate that recognized in the President someone who espoused their own concerns and expectations for the future. Trump, although a dangerous fool, understood people’s fears of “the other,” whether those fears comprised ethnicity, religion, economic and political concerns, etc. He played to them well, especially in those states where his base resides.

Also, and I cannot stress enough this factor’s importance, both Truman with Dewey, and Trump with Clinton, faced overconfident opponents that ran inept campaigns. Neither Dewey nor Clinton worked especially hard, nor believed they would lose. We know the results. Obviously, we were lucky that Truman was the kind of person he was. But, with Trump, a pathological narcissist who makes decisions in terms of what’s best for him and not the country, we will be in existential trouble if he is re-elected. So,  Democrats, pay attention. Run your Presidential campaign(s) based upon John F. Kennedy’s much cited message from his 1961 Inaugural Address: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Appeal to people’s core needs, not their hatred and fears. To do the latter, plays into Trump’s strategy for re-election. If we are not careful, it will work.

Summer is around the corner. With it comes the annual media release of the books to read on vacation. From “beach reading” to serious stuff, the suggestions are out there.

While I have always personally spent much of my free time reading a wide variety of texts throughout the year, I believe it would be salutary this summer to recommend those fiction and non-fiction texts that enhance our understanding of the troubled times we are living in. We have a President who takes pride in not reading anything beyond a menu and his golf score; we should not replicate that behavior.

Let’s begin with a book that is repeatedly identified as Stephen King’s finest novel, The Stand. It is a dystopian story that sheds light on a variety of current issues: authoritarianism, American society, violence, and leadership. It is certainly a horror story, but its monsters—and heroes—are ourselves.

The Stand, in its current paperback iteration, is 1439 pages. It was originally  trimmed by King’s publisher in the 1970’s because of the costs and risks involved in publishing a monster-sized text written by a then relatively unproven author.  In 1986 came the restoration of the  entire volume.

The book begins with an existential situation: at an American germ laboratory a deadly flu-like virus is accidentally released which, eventually, will kill 90+ percent of the American people. Why some individuals are spared is never fully explained. Halfway thru the novel we meet Mother Abagail and Randall Flagg; they represent, respectively, surrogates for their mentors, God and Satan.

Following a meandering course around the nation, disciples of Mother Abagail and Flagg, end up in Boulder, Colorado and Las Vegas, Nevada respectively. Prior to their travels, they were subject to dreams containing images of both surrogates. Given the obvious implications of their decisions, they are taking major “stands” regarding their future. Ties to current events are easy to draw.

In a June 2, 2019 column in The New York Times, Maureen Dowd criticizes Attorney General William Barr for his failure to protect the country in the face of Trump’s transgressions, as revealed in the Mueller Report. She even more severely criticizes Robert Mueller for refusing to take a position on the issue of “obstruction of justice,” citing the fact that Barr himself stated that Mueller’s professed excuse—a Justice Department regulation that precludes indicting a sitting President—did not apply.

In King’s novel, the repeated cry is the necessity for individuals to take positions, to take “stands.” Failure to do so, in King’s world, can lead to tragic consequences. As Maureen Dowd so eloquently sums up Mueller’s dereliction: “Sometimes it’s hard to know who is worse: devils or saints.”