As we move closer to Election Day 2020, it appears obvious that the Trump administration is slowly unraveling: the President, according to press reports, is ignoring his advisors and operating in a vacuum of his own design. Does he want to be impeached, thereby focusing attention on that process rather than his policies and actions? Would he rather avoid the ignominy that goes with such a publicly explosive process?

I now believe that since the call to launch impeachment proceedings is mounting, rather than move forcefully ahead and risk a Trump triumph in 2020, we can, with some adept political maneuvers, slowly and carefully examine removal of the President. By proceeding in such a manner, we would only marginally risk aiding the “stable genius’ ” re-election.

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Speaker Pelosi from initially creating a Commission of Inquiry that would decide whether or not formal, mandated impeachment hearings should ensue. By doing so, the clamor for action would be satisfied and the American people would have the facts before them while still being able to concentrate on the personal concerns that would affect their voting behavior. Remember, the Senate will not go along and convict Trump unless, of course, something on the order of unequivocal treasonous behavior is discovered.

Meanwhile, by adopting this process, Democratic Party candidates for President can continue to debate and focus upon the many important issues that are likely to damage Trump and the Republicans in their 2020 election efforts. From economic inequality to climate change, from foreign policy brinksmanship to racism and misogyny, candidates need not avoid the truth about the dangers this administration represents to nearly everyone’s well-being. Sure it’s a balancing act, but certainly one worth trying, given the existential stakes involved.

One-third Republican, one-third Democrat, the last-third Independent, the voters of Colorado comprise a true Purple state. Traveling throughout the area over the past two weeks, and talking politics with many of those those we met, makes it clear, unfortunately, that a Trump defeat in 2020 is no sure thing.

We live in an era of selfishness where a common refrain from individuals we conversed with was: “I am going to support the candidate who picks my pocket the least.”  In other words, it’s all about preserving wealth by keeping taxes low and income steady. As has been said in countless campaigns, “It’s about the economy, stupid.”

For those of us who believe a second term for Donald Trump will be a disaster for America and the world, the reality of the sentiments cited above leaves us with a narrowed choice in the days ahead: seek impeachment and/or play Russian election interference politics, or deal with what’s most important to voters—their economic stability. I am not suggesting that we avoid impeachment investigations and hearings. What I recommend is a strong concentration on economic concerns, while also making sure that we tie it together with the reality that Trump administration actions will further erode our standard of living, imperil our economic and social choices by doing little to stop  climate change from  destroying agriculture and coastlines, and, finally, seriously increase chances for conflict with our adversaries  because of weak and ignorant leadership.

The message from Colorado in 2019 is essentially the same one we heard three years ago: the American people are troubled and have real economic, political, and social concerns. They want leaders who recognize their problems, offer alternatives to deal with them and, perhaps most of all, make an effort to really care.

To accomplish the above, should we follow the disjointed path of a pathological liar? Alternatives offered by some of the 23 Democratic Party candidates? Options from someone else: Nancy Pelosi, perhaps?

My next post will take those questions on.

The Anti-Defamation League just released its annual report on anti-Semitism in the United States. Guess what? The number of incidents from last year has nearly doubled, to almost 2,000. This past weekend, six months to the day since the worst anti-Semitic incident in American history occurred, another synagogue was attacked. Within the last two months, Muslims were gunned down in New Zealand, soon followed by a massacre of Christians praying in their churches in Sri Lanka.

In the interim, between the two synagogue attacks, Donald Trump was applauded by Jewish groups despite calling into question their identity and loyalty as Americans. He also reaffirmed that he was not a supporter of white nationalism despite having called himself one, and, in Charlottesville, Virginia two years ago, calling the White Supremacists and neo-Nazis who marched, “fine people.” In the same period of time, Trump relocated the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, an area seized from Syria in 1967 during the Six Day War. He also timed these events to coincide with Israel’s national elections in order to help his good friend and Jewish mirror-image (although the Israeli Prime Minister is demonstrably smarter than his American counterpart) “Bibi” Netanyahu, win re-election.

What’s the connection between all this? It really isn’t difficult to discern: racism, politics, and an implicit reawakening of the historical divide between support for a Jewish state and the health of American Jewry.

Regarding racism, rather than repeat myself from previous posts, let me quote from Dana Milbank, columnist for The Washington Post. On April 30th he wrote, in reference to the the California synagogue attack: “The great times for anti-Semites come after Trump joked about Jews being money-grubbing, tweeted an anti-Semitic image, declined to call off supporters threatening anti-Semitic violence, and echoed anti-Semitic tropes about “globalists” while stoking conspiracy theories about prominent Jewish Americans, particularly Jewish American George Soros, who was sent a bomb by a Trump backer.” As his colleague at The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson, wrote the same day: “The president, primarily through his unconstitutional rhetoric, has fostered an atmosphere in which hate-filled white supremacists feel motivated, vindicated and emboldened to act.”

For Trump, beyond having a difficulty with Jews, he is obviously comfortable in using his racism for political gain. The extreme end of the populist movement is where we find the white supremacists; their candidate and ideological partner is Mr. Trump. Personal history, and a repeated failure to denounce these haters, makes that clear.

Finally, we must examine American Jewry and its often difficult relationship with both the concept and reality of a Jewish state, especially in the years leading up to its founding in 1948.

Many American Jews, along with their respective organizations, were opposed to the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, especially in the period between the two world wars. Their argument was essentially that such an endeavor would raise anew the issue of dual loyalty at a time when their very safety was at threat. Once the dimensions of the Holocaust were evident, much of the opposition to securing a place of safety for the remnants of European Jewry, was diminished. Today, thanks to Donald Trump, that loyalty issue arises anew, with its concomitant hateful—and sometimes violent—fallout. This has, in turn, been accompanied by an American Jewish community that is clearly (most polls indicate), moving left-of-center. Currently, Jews evidence more concern with upholding their liberal Jewish values than with supporting a Jewish state whose politics and society are increasingly alien to them. That may be good for the future of American Jewry, but bodes troublesome for a Jewish state that needs American security assurances along with the political clout of American Jews.

This is where we are today: a strong—but thankfully small—element of American Jewry supports an American President whose attitudes and behavior towards Jews is highly problematic. Why? They claim he is “good for Israel.” The health and well-being of American Jewry be damned.

The political pundits were wrong. So were most of the politicians, academics, media personalities, and so many others. Hillary Clinton did not win the 2016 Presidential election. (Well, she did secure three million more votes than Donald Trump, but under our system of government the actual number of votes are not more important than the votes in the electoral college, where Hillary lost.) Why were we all so wrong?

Hillary Clinton has asserted that FBI Director James Comey’s public statements regarding improper use of her e-mails damaged her enough in the eyes of the American electorate, that she was defeated. Others, armed with the new information about Russian actions gathered from the Mueller Report, assert that those activities were largely responsible for Hillary’s defeat.

I believe that both the Russians and Comey certainly affected the outcome of the Presidential race. But, based on the fact that Hillary lost Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in the electoral college by only 70,000 votes combined, other factors played a more important role in her defeat. Those factors, given the stakes for the country in this election, can only be described—in total— as campaign malpractice, especially on the part of the candidate herself.

In terms of what was at risk for the United States, most of us were aware of just how unfit Donald Trump was to assume the office of the Presidency. He was correctly described as shallow, in both knowledge and temperament. Those who knew him best asserted that he was a “conman” and “womanizer,” faithful only to himself. Businesswise, he carried on a practice of constantly being sued for not meeting contractural obligations nor paying his bills. From the beginning of the campaign, Trump made racist and misogynist comments. In all, few considered him fit for the job and recognized that a President Trump could be a serious threat to our security. Hillary certainly knew this, but unlike her many successors as Presidential candidate, she took the outcome of the campaign as a foregone conclusion, and therefore did not work strategically nor hard enough, and misled and patronized the public throughout the campaign. Recognizing what was at stake, these actions and decisions can only be labelled campaign malpractice.

Yes, Hillary was, according to most pollsters, on the path to victory. Assuming that was the case, she also ignored traveling to states where her support was expected to be strong—e.g. Wisconsin—and instead went to Texas, where she had an extremely poor chance of electoral victory. Apparently, the prospect of winning the Lone Star State was good for the ego, but with limited time available, Wisconsin and Michigan were two states that demanded, without success, her presence.

Hillary had taken on a campaign staff that relied more on algorithms and less on what had been successful for her husband: common-sense, instinct, in-depth polling and hard work.

Regarding the last variable, recent accounts of the campaign reveal situations in which, at fundraising events, President Obama had been tirelessly working the room; Hillary would leave early. When she collapsed at an outdoor campaign event, she blamed it on  the heat. In fact, she was suffering from pneumonia. Her lack of candor, when disclosed, only reinforced Trump’s claim that she was secretive and tended to mislead people. Perhaps most disturbing of all, when the FBI tried to notify her campaign staff about the nature of the hacking efforts directed towards the campaign,  it took weeks before the FBI received a sufficient response from those in charge.

In the end, a Presidential effort that seemed destined for success, was torpedoed, in part by the decisions of the candidate and campaign officials. Even with Russian hacking and Comey’s undue interference, Hillary Clinton failed America. She ran a campaign worthy of “the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.” If only she could be sued for malpractice.

Last week, I examined Trump’s implicit charge of dual loyalty directed towards American Jews. For this President, their country is not the United States, but Israel; their Prime Minister is Benjamin Netanyahu. The former claim was made at last year’s White House Chanukah Party; the latter at the most recent meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition, held in Las Vegas. At that March session, Trump also described the need to close American borders to further immigration because “our country is full.”  This statement was made to a primarily Jewish audience, many of whose relatives died in Nazi concentration camps because the U.S. denied them entry. The response of the crowd to Trump’s comments: applause.

Defenders of Trump that claim he is “good for the Jews,” often argue that, after all, he has a Jewish daughter and son-in-law along with Jewish grandchildren. How that balances with a family history that is decidedly unfriendly to Jews and who himself now questions their loyalties, is unfathomable.

The other, more repeated and public defense of Trump (especially among many Jews is that he is “good for Israel.” In fact, I would contend that his policies are on course to help Israel move towards becoming a pariah state eventually threatening the country existentially.

It has always been the presumption of a vast number of political scientists—myself included—that policies and actions that weaken the U.S., have a corresponding affect upon our allies and friends. That is especially the case for Israel, a country that has few friends and only one—America—major supporter. If the former is ever facing an existential threat, it is assumed that this country would be of assistance. The quality and quantity of such aid is of course dependent upon the resources available. There are, consequently, few knowledgeable observers who doubt that Trump’s activities in the international arena have not weakened our will and ability to respond to a crisis facing any nation, including Israel. To therefore applaud Trump for moving the American embassy to Israel or for recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, is to ignore the forest for the trees. Neither action makes either country stronger politically or militarily. What it does do is shore up Trump’s political base among Jews and Evangelical Christians.

Meanwhile, for Israel’s friends to operate in a cone of silence while that nation assumes the features of an apartheid-like state, is a recipe for further Israeli isolation and diminished international support. In this country as well, the American public, and especially younger American Jews, are indicating significant reductions in support for Israel. Remember, as Trump and right-wing Republicans move in the other direction, Israel is becoming less a bi-partisan issue, a factor that can have major ramifications in the months ahead.

How long Israel will remain a “special” nation in the view of the American people, is unknowable at this point. That this question is even being asked seriously, should act as a bellwether  for Israel’s friends and allies.

At this past year’s White House Chanukah Party, President Trump talked to those assembled about his excellent relationship with “their” country—Israel. A few weeks ago, at a meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition(RJC), held in Las Vegas (home of Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson), Trump elaborated upon his friendship with “their Prime Minister,” Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu. In both of these instances, Trump was addressing audiences that were overwhelmingly made up of American citizens.

I am an American Jew and, while I have a deep affection for Israel, it is certainly not my country, nor is Netanyahu my Prime Minister. I resent the labelling and, especially, Trump’s obvious and explicit intent: Jews, like their Muslim, Hispanic, etc. fellow citizens,  cannot be “true” Americans.  After all, don’t we each maintain a loyalty to other countries?

Jews, and so many other ethnic and religious groups, have been subject to charges of dual loyalty on a regular basis, most recently in Charlottesville, Virginia, when neo-Nazis and other white supremacists shouted as they marched, “Jews will not replace us.” To Trump, as he explained later on, some of these protesters were “good people.”

At the same meeting of the RJC noted above, Trump proudly discussed his attempts to close America’s doors to new asylum seekers and others seeking entry to the United States. The predominantly Jewish crowd applauded the President. This is a shameful response, and the silence of Jewish leaders and organizations—with the notable exception of J Street, was shameful as well. As one newscaster observed, referring to the Holocaust and the mantra to “Never Forget,”  perhaps that should now be replaced by a new slogan, “Never Remember?”

For those who need a reminder,  in 1924 Congress approved, and the President signed, an immigration act that significantly reduced the number of Jewish refugees allowed into the country. These restrictive immigration policies would last until the end of World War II, thereby doing little to help save those fleeing Genocide in Europe. Thus, when Jews applaud an American leader for again “closing the door,” it is a tragedy. The American Jewish community must instead speak out, demonstrate, and condemn such behavior. Otherwise, they are not being true to their Jewish traditions and belief in social justice.

When asked of many Jewish Trump supporters why they are enamored of a man whose family history and own behavior is racist, the answer is largely two-fold: he is good for Israel and his daughter and her children are Jewish. Such answers are misguided and wrong. For the sake of brevity, I will leave to my next blogpost an explanation of why that is the case.

Today, the Democratic Party candidates for President of the United States are competing to be perceived as the most “Progressive” of the pack. The label has caught on with the public although few individuals are able to define what it means. When they make the attempt, definitions often run the gamut of political perspectives, from centrist to socialist. For purposes of this blogpost, I will rely on a definition from The Pocket Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus (Third Edition). It describes a “Progressive” as someone “favoring new ideas or social reform.” Clearly a broad definition, one fitting many ideas and policies, some strictly dependent upon context.

By way of the above term, no one is better suited to be a “Progressive” model than Harry Truman. He was an elected local politician in Missouri, and eventually became its U.S. Senator. Chosen by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) as his candidate for Vice-President for his fourth term in 1944, he became President upon FDR’s death in April 1945, as World War II was nearing its end.

Truman, on accession to office, was faced with having to decide major issues of domestic and foreign policy, none more important than whether to use an atomic bomb on Japan in order to bring the war to a quick end. Doing so, he was told, would avoid the countless American casualties necessitated by the alternative option: an invasion of the Japanese homeland.

Truman was a unique individual, a politician with no hint of scandal, who followed one primary guideline in his life and in his decision-making: a determination to do what he felt was “right.” That was, of course, a subjective action, but he lived by a moral code that we should all envy. It was this mix of personal rectitude and truly tough soul-searching, that made him the ideal centerpiece for study and emulation.

Harry understood people. Tested during World War I, he became a recognizable “leader” in the best sense of that word. Men followed him into action—both militarily and practically—understanding that he  would always explore every alternative before acting. He carried this operational code into politics and, when he was chosen to head a Senate Select Committee that explored waste and graft as World War II was being waged, both sides of the aisle applauded his actions. People knew he could be trusted and his constituents and colleagues understood that he could be counted upon to make the right decisions and help guide the Senate and the country accordingly.

Today, in terms of the 15 or so candidates for President on the Democratic side, most either implicitly or publicly self-identify as “Progressive;” none immediately stands out as “Truman-like.” Specific policies on healthcare, the environment, foreign policy, etc, can be labelled as progressive, but motivation is often obscured.

On most of the issues we are still contentiously debating—especially health-care and social justice issues—it was Truman who laid the foundation for future progress. In foreign policy as well, it was Truman who helped create the series of collective alliances (e.g. NATO), that Trump has tried to destroy. The 1947 Marshall Plan was initially designed to stave off hunger, poverty, and economic chaos in post-war Europe. Stability there would, it was hoped, provide a barrier to Soviet encroachment. Truman also supported the creation of Israel, peacefully overcome a Russian blockade of West Berlin, and fought communist aggression in Korea.

So my advice to our next President is clear: read about and learn from Harry Truman. The candidate who bases their campaign platform on the practices and policies of the “Man from Missouri,” will be the true Progressive. If he or she can implement that platform as President, they may also eventually obtain the label “Great” by our nation’s historians.

At the beginning of the week, we learned two primary conclusions from the Mueller Report that investigated connections between Russia and crimes related to the 2016 Presidential campaign. According to Special Counsel Mueller, as reported by Attorney General Barr, there was, first, “no collusion” between Trump and the Russians and, second, sufficient evidence did not exist to charge—or absolve—the President regarding efforts to “obstruct justice” in this matter.

Now it will be up to Congress to determine how far to pursue issues raised in the report, as well as the many, not necessarily related questions, that remain regarding this President. Among them: We know he lies. But, did he launder money, participate in campaign violations and/or tax fraud, establish a nefarious relationship with Russian oligarchs and businessmen, or violate the emoluments clause of the Constitution by receiving funds from foreign entities?

As the Democrats et al pursue their inquiries, they should remember what is most important: making sure that Trump is not re-elected (if, of course, he is not  first removed by impeachment). Four more years of Trump will harm our national interests both abroad and domestically.

My advice for the Democratic leaders: don’t ignore the truth about Trump, but that should not be the central 2020 campaign issue. There are so many others on which to run: health care, climate change, tax cuts for the rich, campaign finance, trade and tariffs, restoring amity with our allies, North Korea, terrorism, etc. In none of the above have the Republicans succeeded. They are, thus, ripe as winning issues for the Democrats if they only center their campaign(s) on them. To do that most effectively they need to winnow their Presidential candidates from 15 or 16 down to 3 or 4. Only then can they concentrate and successfully emphasize what is most important.

The Democratic Presidential candidates, for the most part, are enormously talented and offer fresh ideas and approaches to the many challenges this country will face post-Trump. Usually, and Trump may have been one of the rare exceptions, the electorate tends to favor candidates whose views run from left-of-center to right-of-center. By that measure, most of the candidates fit except, perhaps, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Certainly, none are outside the political mainstream. Then, other factors intrude, especially the personality of the candidate and his or her overall “likability.” On that scale, again, all seem to fit, no one coming close to the high levels of dislike shown Trump even before he entered the Presidential race in 2015.

With almost all the candidates meeting the traditional characteristics of acceptability, for a number of reasons, including electability, it is vital that a person of color be on the ticket. Thus, in light of where we are following release of the initial Mueller findings, nothing has changed. As I suggested a few months ago: Biden for President and Kamala Harris as his running mate. That is a winning ticket so long as the Democrats can move beyond (but not ignore) Trump, and focus their campaigns on the key issues facing the nation.

Let’s begin with a personal story: When I was a Graduate Student at UCLA in Political Science, I also taught a number of classes. In one of them, I had a student who was the son of a world-reknowned tennis star who was just beginning to play on the school’s tennis team. Although these were the days of UCLA at its basketball zenith, other teams, including tennis, were nationally ranked.

This student was an academic slouch. He rarely studied, did poorly on tests, and regularly mouthed-off. He felt and acted entitled. During his final exam, he was caught cheating, copying answers from an equally poor student, and he flunked the course. He became ineligible to play tennis and at UCLA that was a big deal. I was heavily pressured by school administrators to pass him, but that was not to be. This was not an unusual occurrence at UCLA when it came to sports and students who should never have been accepted.

Today, in light of the latest influence-peddling scandal at so many highly ranked schools (including UCLA), it is apparent that not only is cheating acquiring new forms, but is effects are increasingly tragic for those students deserving of entry, but are rejected, maybe because they can’t afford to engage in the pay-to-play game.

News reports assert that the admitted perpetrator of this new admissions fiasco earned $25 million in bribes. We also recently learned that Donald Trump threatened schools he attended not to publicly release his grades. He also regularly preaches how smart he is since he attended an Ivy League School. Something not right here? It is, again, likely part of the same process: paying-to-play where those less advantaged, whether by lack of sufficient wealth and/or other reasons, get screwed.

In Graduate School, I remember the debates over Affirmative Action, especially those arising from the more privileged, generally white, segments of the community. Today, in part because of such debates, along with court rulings, this effort to affirmatively assist students who demonstrate their suitability for admission, but for one reason or another are not accepted, has tragically slowed down. Some schools have entirely ended the program.

Hopefully, this new academic admissions scandal will revive the debate about who, in fact, is denied admission and who and why certain others obtain entry. While Affirmative Action is no longer widely used, corrupt admission  practices are as rampant on the nation’s campuses as corruption is a norm for the Trump Presidency. Both require intense legal review, indictments, and repair.

“So,  yes, I know full well that you can love Israel, be critical of its current government and truly despise anti-Semitism all at the same time. What you cannot do is play fast and loose with language that cannot help but be seen as anti-Semitic (Emphasis added). I pray Omar now realizes this. At this moment, opponents of bigotry must be able to rely on each other.” (E.J. Dionne Jr., The Washington Post, 3/11/2019).

The paragraph above is frighteningly accurate. What we are again witnessing in the body politic is the careless use of words that can hurt; words that are subjectively used to target and damage. Whether they are anti-Semitic, anti-Islamic, or anti-Black, statements are made, often (but not always) ill-considered, and then purposefully misinterpreted by politicians et al, to make partisan points and label individuals as racist. At the same time, when others purposefully go negative in their characterizations, excuses are made for inexcusable behavior. For example, Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa), spouted racist rhetoric in Congress with rarely a comment in protest. Trump now calls Democrats “anti-Jewish,” describes  neo-Nazis and white nationalists as “good people,” and attacks individuals of color regularly. Criticism of this bigot’s remarks remain muted except when it’s politically advantageous to act otherwise.

Expressions of hatred have become a normal part of our culture. We remain  too often  “careless” with words that can have the most most pejorative of meanings, depending on context. This cancer of hate, in turn, continues to infect  worldwide. For example, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, already  having a problematic relationship with Palestinians and Muslims in general, has welcomed a fascist-style political party as an acceptable coalition partner. This move is now playing out in a new political debate within and amongst various American ethnic and religious groups.

For the of us whose chief goal for 2020 is to defeat Donald Trump and his band of Enablers, it is imperative that divisiveness end and we stop providing ammunition to the Republicans. Whether we are to the left of  center, centrist, or to the right, we must come together to assure that America has not lost its fundamental decency.  Hatred is not  an American trait regardless of the Republican attempt to use that insidious characteristic for political ends.