You may have seen this meme floating around the internet. I saw it on the wall of a Facebook friend of mine. He shared the post from someone else (who I think was the creator). My friend added, "Let's put in term limits for every representative and senator with a heaping side of wait period before a politician can become a lobbyist."
The original post had the text "This may upset you but..."
So, I want to talk about this. Term limits and pandering photo-ops.
Originally, I wrote this post as a Facebook reply, so I'll edit it to be more Blog-friendly. Please read and reply here or on the original post. I approve comments, so yours might not show immediately.
*****
TLDR: the Brookings article linked here is an excellent argument against congressional term limits and has most of my points within it. Here begins the original reply that I wrote:
(Completely Unqualified and Somewhat Arbitrary) 2020 Democratic Primary Preference Rankings
The field may be finalizing. There's very little reason for me to be settled on just one candidate at this point, but I have thoughts. What point is a blog if I don't share them with my (incredibly limited) audience? So, I'm starting a Ranking of Preference for 2020 Democratic Candidates. I'm considering a number of factors when putting together this ranking.
Ranking Factors (in No Particular Order)
Candidate's Story: Why them and why now? Why are they running for president? Why are they the best candidate (in their minds or those of their supporters)?
Campaigning and General Election Strength: The most important thing is beating Trump. Why do I think one candidate would be better in the general than another? Read below to find out!
Ability to Inspire: Let's face it--turning out voters is essential, and people are reluctant to turn out if they are not inspired.
Qualifications for the Job: This whole experiment with an extremely unqualified president has been a complete disaster. The Democratic candidate needs to be ready, able to pick good advisers, able to listen to people who know more than them, able to learn the job quickly or already have a high level of understanding of the job and be someone we can trust to make the right decisions.
Positions on Issues: I want to support a candidate I agree with. If I don't agree with their position on an issue, can I accept their reasons for why they believe what they believe?
Momentum/Trending: Is this candidate trending up or down in my rankings? Why?
Status: Have they declared their run or exploratory committee? If not, will they probably do so?
My (Completely Unqualified) 2020 Democratic Primary Preference Rankings
There's very little reason for me to be settled on just one candidate at this point, but I have thoughts. What point is a blog if I don't share them with my (incredibly limited) audience? So, I'm starting a Ranking of Preference for 2020 Democratic Candidates. I'm considering a number of factors when putting together this ranking.
Ranking Factors (in No Particular Order)
Candidate's Story: Why them and why now? Why are they running for president? Why are they the best candidate (in their minds or those of their supporters)?
Campaigning and General Election Strength: The most important thing is beating Trump. Why do I think one candidate would be better in the general than another? Read below to find out!
Ability to Inspire: Let's face it--turning out voters is essential, and people are reluctant to turn out if they are not inspired.
Qualifications for the Job: This whole experiment with an extremely unqualified president has been a complete disaster. The Democratic candidate needs to be ready, able to pick good advisers, able to listen to people who know more than them, able to learn the job quickly or already have a high level of understanding of the job and be someone we can trust to make the right decisions.
Positions on Issues: I want to support a candidate I agree with. If I don't agree with their position on an issue, can I accept their reasons for why they believe what they believe?
Momentum/Trending: Is this candidate trending up or down in my rankings? Why?
Status: Have they declared their run or exploratory committee? If not, will they probably do so?
There's very little reason for me to be settled on just one candidate at this point, but I have thoughts. What point is a blog if I don't share them with my (incredibly limited) audience? So, I'm starting a Ranking of Preference for 2020 Democratic Candidates. I'm considering a number of factors when putting together this ranking.
Ranking Factors (in No Particular Order)
Candidate's Story: Why them and why now? Why are they running for president? Why are they the best candidate (in their minds or those of their supporters)?
Campaigning and General Election Strength: The most important thing is beating Trump. Why do I think one candidate would be better in the general than another? Read below to find out!
Ability to Inspire: Let's face it--turning out voters is essential, and people are reluctant to turn out if they are not inspired.
Qualifications for the Job: This whole experiment with an extremely unqualified president has been a complete disaster. The Democratic candidate needs to be ready, able to pick good advisers, able to listen to people who know more than them, able to learn the job quickly or already have a high level of understanding of the job and be someone we can trust to make the right decisions.
Positions on Issues: I want to support a candidate I agree with. If I don't agree with their position on an issue, can I accept their reasons for why they believe what they believe?
Momentum/Trending: Is this candidate trending up or down in my rankings? Why?
Status: Have they declared their run or exploratory committee? If not, will they probably do so?
So, in my ongoing effort to learn more about the world and try to see things from varying perspectives, I've been investigating the online narrative that progressive politicians are anti-Israel or anti-semitic. This fairly new narrative is one I've been observing spread by a few of my friends on Facebook and a significant number of accounts I follow on Twitter, and I'm curious where the impression comes from, what evidence supports it, and why the Overton Window has moved in such a direction. Any movement should be willing to look at itself honestly, so looking at what progressives have said and done about Israel and Jewish issues is a reasonable thing to do, and I think it can be done without feeding any sort of false narrative.
I spent about an evening on Google. There's probably more to this story than I found looking into it. Your mileage may vary.
The first results were a number of opinion articles by Karol Markowicz for the New York Post with such titles as, "Liberals refuse to face the left’s growing anti-Semitism" and "Liberal Jews still turning blind eye to anti-Semitism on the left." Notice a theme? Anyway, I read through these articles and also looked into the author. Ms. Markowicz seems to be a fairly run-of-the-mill conservative independent journalist who was born in the USSR and writes about politics in the New York Area. She's clearly biased, but I'm not just going to chalk her up as a partisan hack. Regardless of the source, the articles had some evidence that I couldn't completely ignore.
The next result that actually was about this topic was an op-ed in the Detroit News (according to MediaBiasFactCheck it’s a right-of-center daily publication in Michigan) titled "Opinion: Democrats won't fight anti-Semitism." The author emphasized Ilhan Omar (freshman Congresswoman from Michigan) and her connection to the BDS movement. This is factually true. Omar's statements about the BDS movement are far more nuanced than any sort of blind loyalty to it, though. She seems to have wrestled with the issue and has subtleties behind her support for it. More about that later. The author's credits at the end of the article state, 'David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of the book "First Freedom: A Ride Through America's Enduring History With the Gun."' Okay. We might have another partisan operative here, but rather than spending all my time attacking the messengers, I also should consider their arguments.
Next up is, “Sorry, Liberals: Anti-Zionism Is Anti-Semitic” from the Forward (formerly the Jewish Daily Forward which Media Bias/Fact Check rates as Left-Center Bias with High levels of Factual Reporting). This one is written by Petra Marquardt-Bigman. Marquardt-Bigman argues against any sort of ideas of giving Palestinians equal rights in Israel as leading to an Arab-dominated country that will subvert and expel Jews if not restrained. The author continues to argue about the Temple Mount and other issues related to the Arab-Israeli conflict throughout the history of Israel. She argues that the left cannot be pro-Palestinian anti-Zionist and ignorant of the “long history and legacy of anti-Semitism in the Christian west, but also the ancient and enduring anti-Jewish bigotry in the Muslim Middle East” without being anti-Semitic themselves. I did some checking into Ms. Marquardt-Bigman and found that she has been a pretty consistently conservative author in regard to Israel, and has been criticizing liberal activists for about a year now. I think the author has some valid points that people should consider. I think it’s likely that people who look at the BDS movement do not consider things from this view and do not have a grasp of the nuances and subtleties related to the Arab-Israeli relations. I also think the author is a partisan who wants to undermine any Leftist who disagrees with them. Both things can be true.
Next on the list was a targeted article about BDS from The Guardian (Left-Center Bias with High levels of Factual Reporting according to MB/FC) written by Nathan Thrall. This article was a doozy, but I don’t know much about the BDS movement and I’m not sure why it’s seen as such a threat. Thrall is a Senior Analyst at the International Crisis Group and lives in Jerusalem. He’s pretty widely published and the article is quite strong. Included in the article is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism “known as the ‘three Ds’: delegitimization of Israel, demonization of Israel and double standards for Israel.” I find this definition helpful, as the double standards issue is frequently where the above authors that I examined found fault with Progressive views toward Israel.
Representative Ilhan Omar had some thoughts that she shared on the BDS movement on a recent episode of Pod Save America. Omar said that her goal for the BDS movement was to pressure our allies to promote equal rights, end any human rights violations, and be sure that “there is not one human life that is worth more than another.” She wanted us to challenge all allies to measure up to that standard. The problem is that she doesn’t publicly push any such standard for allies beyond Israel. This is easily seen as a double standard for Israel. I see how people view this as anti-Semitic.
Personal Notes
It’s a challenging viewpoint. I understand the view. I understand why people see it as anti-Semitic. I think that the idea that we should hold our allies accountable for human rights violations is a good one. I think that we should push our allies to treat all citizens as equal is a good one. I think it’s hard to hold Israel and China to the same standards we might hold England, Australia or Canada to. The countries have different realities on the ground. I think that black-and-white definitions lose their value when applied to the real world.
The following section is about my own views about Israel, the BDS movement, and whether young progressive leaders (particularly Representative Omar) are anti-semites.
I don’t think this means that Omar is anti-semitic. I’m not saying she’s not. I’m saying this alone doesn’t make me see her as anti-semitic. I know that I just poked holes in my own logic, but hear me out.
Governments are made of people and people change. They grow and develop. They have events happen to them that make them see the world differently (for good or for ill). They make mistakes, and they usually try to do things that benefit their populace.
In Saudi Arabia, the leaders regularly engage in cruel and inhumane treatment of their citizens in order to strengthen their theocratic relations and shore up security. Saudi is an American ally with a horrible history of human rights abuses. I personally feel we need to cut all ties with Saudi Arabia until they get their shit together. That’s a whole other issue, but it’s also related to Israel, as relations between the two countries have warmed significantly in the past decade or so.
In China, this looks like authoritarianism. Chinese policies are ruthless and brutal, but they are usually for the empowerment of the nation of China. Should we pressure China to treat its people more humanely? Hell yeah, we should! Should we cut off all ties with them and boycott their economic output until this happens? God, no! Diplomatic solutions, please!
In Israel, this looks like mistreatment of Palestinians. Israeli people live in constant fear of terrorist and rocket attacks. This fear is frequently stoked by politicians for their own gain, yes, but it’s also rooted in reality. Israel has had an existential threat for its entire history. Not taking that into account is ridiculous. Palestinian people have been mistreated for decades. Yes. This is true. They exist in a massive open-air prison. The conditions in Gaza are worse than most of the rest of the world and clearly all of the rest of Israel. Are settlements counterproductive in producing a lasting peace treaty with the Palestinian people? Yes. Should we Boycott, Divest, and Sanction Israel until they change their behaviors? Probably not. Diplomatic solutions, please! Is this a double standard for Israel? Maybe.
Closing Thoughts
Is this an anti-semitic view? I hope not, but that’s for someone else to judge. I don’t feel it is, but Donald Trump doesn’t think of himself as racist. I could be wrong. It’s happened before and it will happen again. I’m not Trump; I’m willing to entertain the possibility that I’m wrong.
The freshman class in the House and a number of vocal young progressives have associated themselves with movements and thinkers that are controversial. The Women’s March has been under fire for organizers supporting Louis Farrakhan. Progressives are getting attacked for questioning Israel. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the one getting all the press, but in the dark corners of the internet, people still seek to divide us against ourselves.
I listened to Ben Rhodes and Jen Psaki talk about Russian information warfare around the 2016 election, and I couldn’t help but notice the attempts to undermine the new progressive leaders run interestingly parallel. Are Russian bots promoting this idea in order to destabilize the progressive movement? Am I (unknowingly) helping them? I think it doesn’t really matter. I think we should always question our beliefs and our leaders. I think we should always look for the nuance around issues and learn about the subtleties. I think that’s part of what being a progressive means. I think we have to seriously consider most issues from as many angles as possible.
Except for white supremacists and incels. Fuck those guys.
I'm not sure why, but I've decided to re-launch this whole blog thing. There's so much going on in the world and so much going on in my life.
So, if life really begins at 40, here's what is my life right now:
Family
Teaching
Politics (following rather than participating actively)
Television
Music
Video games
Reading
Some sort of social life (a serious challenge with parenting)
The original intention of this blog was to share insight into subjects near and dear to my heart as they unfolded in my life. I left much of that off about the time my first child was born. The second walks and is beginning to talk, so... it has been a while. I guess it's time to update.
Gamer, Musician, Teacher, Husband, Father, and Incognito Muppet. I try to do more than just get through the day. Every day. All opinions expressed are mine and not reflective of my organization or employers. (He/Him/His)
