So It Goes

Jews With Hammers

A WEEK AGO, I SPENT A DAY IN THE HOT SUN lifting countless 80-pound bags of Sakrete, mixing them with water and pouring out the mix to make a sidewalk. I also hung a new door to a bedroom (which needs to be adjusted, though), and poured concrete footings for a back deck.

If this had been at my own house, first of all, I probably wouldn't have done it. At my own house, I lack the ambition and confidence to take on such complex tasks -- or so they seemed to me before some professional contractors guided me and others through the necessary steps.

But, along with 25 or 30 other volunteers -- most of whom, like me, had never done anything close to building a sidewalk or a back deck or, as others were, hanging new kitchen cabinets -- I somehow plunged right in at a small shotgun-style house in Southeast Washington, D.C., as part of an annual program called Sukkot in April.

Sukkot in April is the brainchild of, well, my wife, Audrey Lyon, who runs Yachad, the Jewish  housing and community development group based in D.C. About a dozen or so years ago, she approached what was then called Christmas in April (now Rebuilding Together), which organized churches, businesses, and other groups to spend a day in April renovating homes of people who had serious needs for repairs but little or no money to get them done. Because of Christmas in April's name and the fact that most of their work took place on Saturdays, there were few, if any, synagogues and other Jewish groups taking part. So Yachad organized these Jewish groups under the banner of Sukkot (a Jewish harvest festival in the fall) in April, and they scheduled all the work to done on Sundays, which wouldn't interfere with the biblical instruction not to work on the sabbath. Consistently, there are a couple of dozen or more synagogues and Jewish groups -- and a few of hundred individual volunteers -- participating every year.

My own synagogue, Adat Shalom Reconstructionist Congregation, is one of the more active ones in the Sukkot in April program. In fact, many years we get almost too many volunteers -- a good problem -- and, because of that we usually take on some of the more challenging houses.

This year's was no exception. I'm not entirely sure of the circumstances of the family that owns the house, but they probably fit the typical profile. Often times we see an elderly woman there, with health problems and a fixed income (probably just Social Security). She may have owned and lived in the home for a couple of decades or more. It may even be paid off or close to paid off. But she doesn't have the ready cash to keep up with maintenance.

You'll see situations where the roof has needed to be replaced for years, and, in that time, water damage has destroyed walls, allowed mold to flourish and so forth. Or some have barely or not-functioning basic amenities, such as toilets and showers, stoves or refrigerators. Paint (some of it still lead-based) might be pealing all over. Floorboards could be eroded, enabling one to see through to the floor below. If conditions aren't altogether unsafe or unhealthy, they are surely not comfortable.

Sukkot in April (and other home repair programs Yachad runs) offers a rescue. It bundles the energy and resources (sweat equity and a modest cash outlay for materials) from Jews who are looking for a way to help someone in need. Not that Jews have the monopoly on that impulse to help; there are plenty of other denominational groups and others who are doing what they can.

But what's interesting (I was going to say 'remarkable,' but that's overstating it) is that with Sukkot in April we're engaging in something more than checkbook charity. We're getting our hands dirty in was that most of us -- well, me at least -- would rarely do in our own homes. Mostly that's because (in my case) of a lack of confidence to try to do something (like build a new concrete sidewalk) that might make matters worse. In my case, too, there's a dose of laziness at play.

So take my partners on the sidewalk project, all of whom, like me, spend most their days far from work like this:  David Kupfer, a clinical psychologist, and I, a p.r. guy with a desk job, hoisted the 80-pound bags into the mixer (in fairness, I have to admit that David probably hoisted more than I did) and poured the concrete; David Dolinsky, who runs a video production company, and Blair Levin, a leading telecom industry analyst, both spent several hours on their hands and knees leveling out and finishing the fresh concrete surface.The result: a solid and attractive sidewalk to replace a long strip of weathered plywood. Mark Gunther,a journalist, helped me pour footings for the deck. Ralph Nitkin, a cellular neurobiologist at the National Institutes of Health who seemed to really know what he was doing, worked with me to drill and hang the bedroom door.   

I kept joking that all this should come easily to Jews; after all, it was Jews who built the pyramids. Of course, some smart guy there told me that there's some archaeological evidence to suggest that's largely not true. Okay, whatever. But it is true that most American Jews of my generation are rather like me; not so experienced or skilled with the building trades or with fixing cars and such.

For most of us though, we are only a generation or two away from Jews who knew which end of a hammer was up. My grandfather, for example, was a blacksmith growing up in Lithuania, and made a career in the U.S. wrecking cars and reselling their parts. My uncles were, likewise, pretty handy with building and fixing things. I kick myself that I did not spend more time learning this sort of thing as a kid.

The closest many of us Jewish guys come to building is perhaps during the actual Sukkot holiday in the fall, when we are instructed by the Torah to build a sukkah, a temporary booth in which we are also instructed to eat and sleep. Along with many of my peers, I built my first sukkah (and seem to have to rebuild or repair it every year) only about a dozen years ago or so, and many of us take great pride in this fairly simply accomplishment, knowing how unusual it is for us to build things.

There are plenty of other Jews of our generation around us, though, who do know how to make and repair things. Yachad has, in fact, recruited a fair number of Jewish building contractors to help out on various projects throughout the year. And then there are the two guys who basically kept all the rest of us from screwing up last week: Alan Kanner, who runs a construction company called Added Dimensions, drives a pick-up truck, owns a bunch of cool tools and has jokingly referred to himself as "a Jewish carpenter" (he is, naturally, trained as a lawyer); and Louis Tenenbaum, who modifies homes for people with disabilities and also has a pick-up and cool tools. These guys worked harder than the rest of us, of course, as they answered frequently calls for help from the rest of us who needed guidance on the most basic of tasks.

The point of this exercise, of course, is to help someone who needs the help. The house, when I left it last week (they are doing a second phase today), had been transformed in many ways and will hopefully transform the lives of its residents in important ways, too.

But along the way, some of us who are doing the transforming are transformed ourselves: learning a new skill and building our confidence to do what previously seemed undoable. In addition to using our hands, we do something else that we need to do more of: bridge an all-too-wide gap between ourselves and others with whom we rarely interact, even as they live but a short distance away.

Jeff

Time for Straight Talk About Fox News

In an article this morning about Hillary Clinton's appearance on Fox News's "The O'Reilly Factor, the Washington Post referred to Fox as "a television network that many liberals say is biased against them."

Now, I understand that a straight news article such as this one has to be careful not to present opinion as fact. But, come on, is there really any doubt that Fox News is biased against liberals? Why can’t a straight news story state this as a fact?

Beating up on liberals is the Fox brand, the keystone of its success, a great source of its institutional pride, right? I know, I know, Fox News coyly claims to be the anti-bias network, remedying the alleged liberal bias of the rest of the news media. That’s the official line.

But don't most people, especially its loyal viewers and defenders, pretty much acknowledge that much of what Fox does (and generates ratings specifically for this reason) is trash so-called liberals?

If the demographics of its audiences are any proxy for its brand, then the Washington Post shouldn’t feel compelled to say merely that “liberals say.” According to a survey by the Pew Center for People in the Press, "[W]hile roughly the same proportion of Republicans and Democrats view Fox News as credible, Fox ranks as the most trusted news source among Republicans but is among the least trusted by Democrats." (That survey admittedly came out four years ago. But, while things can certainly change in four years, I think we can all stipulate that Fox has, if anything, intensified that profile.)

And why would a Republican president and his administration grant so many interviews to Fox if they didn’t think they’d be getting sympathetic treatment?

Here I go again, as Ronald Reagan might say, mouthing the false assumptions of the haughty liberal class. Don’t I see that Fox has a few liberal commentators, and that it committed to "fair and balanced” coverage? Don’t I see that, shucks, the network is just trying to level the playing field for the good of the nation, the regular folks? That's how one defends deception, by accusing its accusers of deception. Hit them, then complain about getting hit.

I say all this not as a liberal, by the way, though I suspect that by most definitions I am, on most issues, "liberal." (I'm not crazy about such labels, which is another thing that bugs me about Fox.) I say it because Fox's positioning seems so deliberately misleading.

The truth is, I've got nothing against "conservative" news media, even if they sometimes make my blood boil and if on occasion I surprise myself and actually agree with what they say. If Fox News would just come out and say, “Hey, we represent conservative values, and that’s the lens through which we’re calling what we see,” I would respect it for standing up for what it claims to be.

Indeed, there’s a great tradition in American journalism of newspapers that took on a particular ideology. But I should qualify that.

The era of Republican and Democratic newspapers  took place when there were many more papers and you could count on getting several different points of view, even in the same small or medium-sized town. Today, with the consolidation of media organizations into the control of all but a handful of owners and with the stark cutbacks taking place in newsrooms everywhere, I'm not sure how much our society can afford that sort of ideological journalism -- at least not among those news outlets that are meant to cut across many different communities and provide a common public square where all points of view and the best ideas converge.

(If I sound like a civics puritan, well, maybe I am. But don't worry, the realist in me knows that that the obligation of media organizations to make money too often compromises the public service function of journalism.)

But this “fair and balanced,” “We report. You decide.” business that Fox feeds us is maddening for its disingenuousness. It mocks the notion of thoughtful, constructive discourse. It's a classic example of doublespeak

And we all know it, don’t we? Isn’t it time the Washington Post (and other straight news gatherers) acknowledged that as objective fact and not as a something that some people, supposedly with their own ax to grind, allege?

Jeff

Nat Cole and Sam Cooke Lost Something in the Crossover

ABOUT A YEAR AGO, I was at Borders, looking for a Nat "King" Cole CD. Much to my astonishment, I found that Cole's CDs resided not in the jazz section where I looked first, but in "Easy Listening."

In fact, the CD I eventually found and bought, "After Midnight: The Complete Session" -- a 1956 recording of the Nat "King" Cole Trio -- is, no doubt, exceptionally easy to listen to; it has become one of my favorites since I first heard it a year ago. But it hardly deserves to be relegated to the bins of music that I associate mostly with watered down covers of tired standards, and showy or moody pieces meant to be ambient sound, not great works of artistry worthy of your careful attention.

In "After Midnight," Cole shows himself to be every bit the jazz musician. It's full of his acrobatic, crisply executed piano solos that only a master could pull off. And his voice, at that time well known for is smooth crooning in a soup of richly swelling strings and horns, is nimble, full of energy and experimental. Though he rarely strays from the melody line, the improvisation comes with his never-predictable phrasing.

Though I can't be sure this video clip of Cole singing one of his signature songs, "Route 66," includes the same personnel or was filmed at the same time as the record, the sound this group produces is almost identical to what you hear on "After Midnight." And in this clip of the song "Sweet Lorraine," (a song reputed to have moved him from just a piano player to a singer, too), Cole relinquishes his place at the piano for none other than the legendary Oscar Peterson (backed also by a Hall-of-Fame team of Coleman Hawkins on tenor, Ray Brown on bass and Herb Ellis on guitar). There is no mistaking Cole's vocal stylings as anything but jazz. 

By 1956, most of the albums Nat Cole had put out and his performances on his own new network TV variety show (he was the first black performed to host one), were heavily  orchestrated productions, designed to place his silky voice in the tradition of many of his contemporary crooners -- nearly all of them white and appealing to mostly white audiences.

The best example of this is perhaps is his rendition of Mel Torme's "The Christmas Song," (you know, "Chestnuts roasting on an open fire...."), which is perhaps his most well known legacy today. It's a gorgeous performance that always makes me stop and listen, even though I've heard it more times than I can count. But there's much less of the jazz singer in him here than there is in his trio recordings. The edge is gone, and there's very little in the build of the song that we can't predict, as it is so familiar to the pop vocal conventions of its day.

When you see the difference between Cole The Crooner and Cole The Jazz Stylist (and there's probably no better way to observe the difference when you see this version of him singing "Nature Boy" with bass and drums and this version with full orchestra), you've got to wonder whether he enjoyed being a crossover musician. He was casting behind the genre that was not only his musical foundation but also the -- how to say? -- more authentic expression of his identity as a black man. There's probably little doubt that a career as a pop crooner had to be far more lucrative than one of a jazz ensemble leader (although he had made a good living at that, so I understand). But was it worth what he left behind at many points in his career? That's not a judgment of Cole but of the times. 

Maybe that's why he recorded "After Midnight," which brought him back to his roots. As Ralph Gleason points out in the record's liner notes, "This album was Nat Cole's first with his small group in some time. Long before he was known as a singer, Nat was one of the best of all jazz pianists, winner of [numerous top awards]." The King Cole Trio "set the pattern" for the now-commonplace "trios of piano, bas and guitar working in hotels and nightclubs all over the country," Gleason wrote, adding: "Until its success, no agency would book, and almost no nightclub would hire, such a small combination." This was the age of the big band.

One can't help but wonder, too, whether Sam Cooke, like Cole, felt similarly inauthentic performing the type of music he was most known for. There's no question that his hits -- such as "(What a) Wonderful World" (seen here with this curiously silly montage), "Everybody Likes to Cha Cha" (performed here on American Bandstand) and "You Send Me" (with some saccharine animation here) -- were cutting new paths for early rock and roll and decisive precursors to R&B acts that would emerge later in the 1960s.

But they were surely a departure from the rousing black gospel singing with which Cooke began his career. If anything, his performance persona appeared to have been whitened by producers, who likely feared that Cooke's "race music," as it was known in the '50s and early '60s, might not reach beyond black listeners. Yes, Elvis had already arrived on the scene to introduce whites to "race music," but that doesn't mean the scene had been fully transformed yet.

The most striking example I could find of this on YouTube was this performance by Cooke on "The Arthur Murray Party," a show that ran during the '50s that was about as whitebread as it comes (think Lawrence Welk).  Cooke seems absolutely restrained -- straight-jacketed -- though he stands out as hipper than hip in a room of bright white men and women dressed in tuxedos and society gowns. It must have been an interesting evening.

When you listen, however, to the album "One Night Stand: Sam Cooke Live at the Harlem Square Club, 1963," you get a feel for who the real Sam Cooke might really have been. Recorded in Miami nearly two years before Cooke was killed in a dispute with a girlfriend in December of 1964, the concert sizzles with all the wonderful vocal histrionics and sharp verbal patter between songs that he was clearly not displaying in other venues. 

Take, for example, this plaintive version of "Bring It on Home," (one of my favorite Cooke songs), or this cut of "Nothing Can Save This Love." They make his performance on "The Arthur Murray Party" look like Perry Como.

A New York Times reviewer took note of the album's surprisingly genuine sound when it appeared in 1985:

Most of the great soul singers, from Smokey Robinson to Otis Redding, Aretha Franklin to Al Green, have acknowledged Mr. Cooke as a primary influence, but most of his recordings were tailored for a broad pop audience. Until the release of ''One Night Stand,'' his only live album was ''Sam Cooke at the Copa,'' a set of sophisticated supper-club soul. Like so many performers who got their start on the gospel circuit, Mr. Cooke thrived on audience interaction, and the crowd at Miami's Harlem Square Club seems to have pushed him to the limit.

Critic Steve Leggett of the All Music Guide had this to say of the record:

Not only is this one of the greatest live soul albums ever released, it also reveals a rougher, rawer, and more immediate side to Sam Cooke that his singles only hinted at, good as they were.... Every track burns with an insistent, urgent feel, and although Cooke practically defines melisma on his single releases, here he reaches past that into deeper territory that finds him almost literally shoving and pushing each song forward with shouts, asides, and spoken interactions with the audience, which becomes as much a part of this set as any bandmember.... [W]hile he was a marvelously smooth, versatile, and urbane singer on his official pop recordings, here he explodes into one of the finest sets of raw secular gospel ever captured on tape.

Too bad we didn't have the chance to hear more of this side of Cooke during his relatively short career.  And, while it's understandable -- but not quite forgivable -- that Border's would so wrongly categorize Nat Cole, it's a shame that his "easy listening" career overshadowed what was likely his greatest treasure and contribution to our culture. It seems that both Cole and Cooke were, in a manner of speaking, victims of their times, in spite of their great work and success. And, in a manner of speaking, so are all the rest of us.

Jeff

Another View on Misguided Diplomacy

BEYOND MANY OF THE EDITORIAL PAGES OF MAJOR WESTERN NEWSPAPERS, most of the public criticism of former President Jimmy Carter's meetings this past week with Hamas leadership came from largely from Israelis and most of Israel's Jewish supporters around the world. That's not to say that the criticism was any less valid. But I worry that, when Israelis and the Jews are once again fighting a battle like this on their own, many others around the world tend to discount their views as the same old intransigence.

So rather than rehearse many of the same arguments that other Jewish supporters for Israel are making about President Carter's misguided diplomacy, I thought it would be refreshing to look at a different source and see what his views are on the subject. In this case, I've chosen someone who has been in a good position to evaluate the role of violent extremism among Arab groups in the Middle East, someone who is not motivated necessarily by his embrace of Israel.

I'm referring to Farid Ghadry, a Syrian-born businessman who now lives in the United States and who founded and currently heads a group called the Reform Party of Syria.

RPS describes itself as a "Syrian opposition party to the Assad regime that has emerged as a result of September 11.  The party is governed by secular, peace committed American-Syrians, Euro-Syrians, and native Syrians who are determined to see that a 'New Syria' is reborn that embraces real democratic and economic reforms." And, with his frequent and vigorous speeches, testimonies in Congress, regular blog entries and various other public utterances, Ghadry provides anyone who will listen regular reminders to pay attention to the misdeeds of the Assad regime and to the courageous efforts of those who oppose it.

With that in mind and knowing of his longtime criticism of extremists (particularly those with strong ties to Assad), it's not entirely surprising that Ghadry would be critical of President Carter's meetings with Hamas. But, as with Jewish and Israeli responses to President Carter's meeting, Ghadry's  perspective still gives his arguments as much power as any.

In a blog posting yesterday, Ghadry wrote:

The direct and indirect effect of President Jimmy Carter's visit to Gaza, Egypt, and Damascus to meet with members of Hamas sends chills down the spine of every Arab and Muslim working for reforms in the Middle East because it legitimizes terror and violence and dilutes all the efforts that peaceful Arab reformers have committed themselves to. One such reformer told me: "Why are we working so hard for peace if the Americans prefer to deal with terror?.'" I could not utter but words of encouragement knowing deep inside that he is right.

He goes on:

Under the auspices of “seeking peace”, President Carter is reversing years of hard work by many Palestinians and Israelis who see the road to co-existence paved by true peaceful acts. For President Carter to meet with individuals with blood on their hands not only legitimizes terror but it also encourages it in two ways: It sends the signal to Hamas that its violence pays off but also inspires those who vacillate between violence and peace to surrender to violence.

Ghadry's most valuable message, then, is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, despite that terminology, not strictly between Israelis and Palestinians. Rather, it is between the forces of moderation and the forces of extremism on both sides of the conflict. My belief (and more knowledgeable people than I would probably agree) is that there are a large number of Israelis and Arabs, who if they had their way, could pretty quickly come close to resolving many of the issues that have divided them for so many years. The main obstacle, however, are those who see any such co-existence and cooperation between the two peoples as a threat and who will do anything to derail peace.

Ghadry is not saying (nor am I) that the forces of good should do nothing at all to deal with groups like Hamas and extremist regimes like Iran and Syria. As he writes:

Part of the blame for Carter’s trip falls on this administration as well. The policy of “no policy” towards Syria and Iran has fostered this sense of mid-air suspension that inevitably encourages people like president Carter to apply the laws of physics. Had the US foreign policy been more forceful than simply attempt to isolate Hamas and Syria, the US may had seen faster pace to peace than what the molasses isolationist policy can deliver.

I'm not completely sure what Ghadry means when he says "more forceful." I hope he means it in the diplomatic sense and not through military action against these groups. That's my preference, and one only needs to look at the mess in Iraq to understand why.

But we need diplomacy that's more careful and evenhanded than what President Carter, who has vilely compared Israel to the South African Apartheid governments of years past, has to offer. Ghadry's right that someone with the stature of Jimmy Carter -- a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and tireless advocate for peace and human rights -- frustrates the careful (and probably not-so-careful) efforts of those on both sides of the Israeli-Arab divide who are trying to solve this problem of extremism. It allows the good guys to look like the obstructionists to peace and the bad guys look like great statesmen willing to compromise without really having to compromise.

If you have any doubt that Hamas really doesn't want to compromise, by the way, just read what Mahmoud al-Zahar, Hamas's "foreign minister," wrote in an Op-Ed in the Washington Post three days ago:

A "peace process" with Palestinians cannot take even its first tiny step until Israel first withdraws to the borders of 1967; dismantles all settlements; removes all soldiers from Gaza and the West Bank; repudiates its illegal annexation of Jerusalem; releases all prisoners; and ends its blockade of our international borders, our coastline and our airspace permanently. This would provide the starting point for just negotiations and would lay the groundwork for the return of millions of refugees. Given what we have lost, it is the only basis by which we can start to be whole again.

This is not compromise, especially when you know that Hamas has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel. Rather, it is like one boxer telling another to tie his hands behind his back so the first boxer can finish the other off -- with knives and bullets.

And these are the guys to whom President Carter decides to lend his prestige? Does President Carter have any prestige left to give?

Jeff

An Anniversary to Remember and Learn From

AMERICAN MEDIA LOVE ANNIVERSARIES, especially if they come in nice, clean multiples of five. But most media missed marking a major milestone a little more than a week ago: the 60 anniversary of the signing of the Foreign Assistance Act, the legislation that set the Marshall Plan into motion.

Maybe that’s because the Act itself, signed by President Harry S Truman on April 3, 1948, followed by nearly a year the famous June 1947 speech — given by none other than Secretary of State George C. Marshall at Harvard commencement ceremonies — that was arguably the galvanizing impetus to the creation of the Marshall Plan.

But the Foreign Assistance Act was the culmination of an intense discourse that led to a national consensus around the idea of using American material resources (backed by military assets) to strengthen allies and, as it would turn out, shape them in the image of American capitalism and democracy.

As Diane Kunz wrote in a June 1997 edition of Foreign Affairs Magazine on the 50th anniversary of Marshall’s speech (okay, so I guess that’s the milestone most point to first): “The Marshall Plan was a limited investment that paid incalculable dividends. A situation favorable to American interests was established in Europe. The aid program raised Western Europe from its knees, launched the American challenge to the Soviet Union, and bolstered the American economy.... When the vital interests of the United States seem to be at stake, the expenditure of American dollars for foreign aid can be amply justified. That was true at the time of the Marshall Plan, and it is still true today.”

Unfortunately, not enough Americans seem to recognize the wisdom of Kunz’s last words, “it is still true today.” Nor has our current administration, which has been all too willing to settle disputes and assert American interests using mostly military power, embraced these words. Unlike America in 1947 and ’48, our current national discourse seems to miss the lesson of the Marshall Plan: that such assistance to others around the world can be an effective way to strengthen ties — cultural, economic and political –- with current and future allies. 

Luckily, there are some smart and influential people who understand how that lesson applies to America’s currently sorry standing in the world. Notably, the Center for Strategic and International Studies over the last year convened a Commission on Smart Power, a collection of major policy makers and statespeople. They looked at ways in which the U.S. might strengthen its image among and ties with the other nations of the world by, as the Commission put it, “providing things that people and governments in all quarters of the world want but cannot attain in the absence of American leadership.”

The “smart power” approach is not a carbon copy of the Marshall Plan, which gave out a total of $12.5 billion to several war-battered Western European countries between April 3, 1948, and June 30, 1951. As the Commission’s November 2007 final report describes, “smart power” tools include:

• “Alliances, partnerships, and institutions: Rebuilding the foundation to deal with global challenges;
• “Global development: Developing a unified approach, starting with public health;
• “Public diplomacy: Improving access to international knowledge and learning;
• “Economic integration: Increasing the benefits of trade for all people;
• “Technology and innovation: Addressing climate change and energy insecurity.”

Some of these approaches involve cash outlays, not necessarily only from the U.S. Treasury but also from private American sources. Some call for a different way of facing the rest of the world (such as engagement through alliances, as well as public diplomacy) and even changing how most Americans carry on our lives (e.g. climate change).

The “smart power” approach (the new-and-improved iteration of the term “soft power,” coined by Joseph S. Nye, Jr., the Harvard government professor who co-chairs the Commission) does not argue that it can or should replace “hard power” — U.S. military might — in world affairs.

Rather, it aims to complement hard power and to “attract people to our side without coercion,” as the Commission’s report puts it. “Legitimacy is central to soft power. If a people or nation believes American objectives to be legitimate, we are more likely to persuade them to follow our lead without using threats and bribes. Legitimacy can also reduce opposition to — and the costs of — using hard power when the situation demands. Appealing to others’ values, interests, and preferences can, in certain circumstances, replace the dependence on carrots and sticks….

“….Militaries are well suited to defeating states,” the report adds, “but they are often poor instruments to fight ideas. Today, victory depends on attracting foreign populations to our side and helping them to build capable, democratic states. Soft power is essential to winning the peace.”

The trouble is that it’s difficult to spread this gospel within the current landscape. Many Members of Congress can speak of the fervor with which many of their constituents castigate them for voting for foreign aid, arguing that all those dollars we send abroad (which usually represent a fraction of a percent of the federal budget) instead of being applied to domestic priorities.

“[I]n general,” the U.S. Agency for International Development states on its Web site, "Americans have never strongly supported economic aid to other countries. For example, three surveys conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations since the end of the Cold War have found that the U.S. public is divided on whether to give economic aid to other countries. In the most recent survey, in line with the previous two, only 13 percent of Americans favored increasing federal spending on foreign economic aid-while 48 percent favored reducing it.”

If anything, the U.S. military has resources that vastly outweigh those that USAID gets. For that reason, in many places around the world our military has in recent years increasingly been the entity that’s put in charge of delivering the kind of assistance that USAID is supposed to. It has to send a bit of a mixed message for even the most compassionate soldier, with an M-16 slung over his shoulder, to represent America as a giving and benevolent country.

Many who espouse the policy of “smart power” will admit that it’s too late and highly unlikely for our current administration to put the approach in place in any effective way. Their hope is that our next president will get a fresh opportunity to use this set of tools in a way that could begin to undo the mess our current administration has made of America’s standing in the world.

But they need a strong public consensus – like the one that emerged around the Marshall Plan 60 years ago — to give them the political cover to deploy what can be a powerful weapon in our foreign policy arsenal.

We shall see.

Jeff

Pictured with President Truman in the photo above (which you can click to enlarge and which comes from the Averell Harriman Papers in the Library of Congress's Manuscript Division) of the signing of the Foreign Assistance Act, are (l to r): Senator Arthur Vandenberg (R—Mich.), Treasury Secretary John Snyder, Representative Charles Eaton (R—N.J.), Senator Tom Connally (D—Tex.), Secretary of the Interior Julius A. Krug, Representative Joseph Martin (R—Mass.), Representative Sol Bloom (D—N.Y.),and Attorney General Tom Clark.

Maybe Wright Was Right

A FEW DAYS AGO, MY FAMILY AND I TOURED FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT'S Pope-Leighey House in Alexandria, Va., and the visit put in sharp relief the contrast between how we live today and how many Americans lived a couple of generations ago.

Not that this house, built in 1939, was especially typical of its time. Many of the innovations Wright included in the house -- such as its long, horizontal lines that transcended interior-exterior walls, simple building materials, furniture designed for the house, the dining room and living room sharing essentially the same space -- probably stuck out pretty noticeably in a neighborhood of small Georgian-style homes.

The Pope-Leighey House is a shining exemplar of what Wright referred to as Usonian houses, a new form of relatively inexpensive homes that were well designed for average people and used basic materials. The houses would be based on Wright's notion of democracy in home-owning, which called for simplicity of living and for bringing the family together. (Never mind that Wright himself could live rather lavishly and, thrice married, he wasn't such a great family man himself.)

What's most interesting about the house, at least to me, is its relatively austerity. Wright not only designed a house for his clients, but was also trying to craft a lifestyle for them, too. With only a total area of 1,200 square feet, the Pope-Leighey House has few closets, for example, and the ones it does have are small, suggesting that if you can't find a place to store everything you have, then you probably own too much stuff. (There is no attic or basement, and most owners of Wright homes like this, we were told, might put up a shed in the back or store things elsewhere.)

There's scarcely enough room in the bedrooms to do anything more than get out of bed and dress. Bedrooms, Wright believed, were for sleeping. Once you performed that function of life, your obligation was to spend time in common rooms with your family or outside with nature, which figures prominently in nearly every Wright design.

Wright's covered his walls, interior and exterior, with Florida cypress paneling, and he discouraged the hanging of pictures or other ornamental items that might disturb the organic atmosphere he was trying to create. He also made sure there were book shelves built into every room (except the bathroom, where you should only spend as much time as it take to, well, you know), as he favored reading.

Like most of his structures, Wright designed these houses to blend into the natural surroundings, almost as though he had melded them together. (His most brilliant and well-known experiment using this principle was perhaps Fallingwater, built into a hill with a waterfall flowing under it.)

But different as it was in design and as a social experiment, methinks the house was not such a radical departure from others in its neighborhood and others around America's cities, suburbs and rural areas at the time.

You don't have to have a degree in urban planning (which I do) to see that most of the houses built well before World War II, and even many others shortly after, did not give their owners the kinds of space and amenities that were common to every new house built after, say, 1960.

My own house, built in the mid-1920s, is a bungalow that originally had two small bedrooms, and perhaps a third if you winterized a back porch. Needless to say, there was only one bathroom. The kitchen was very simple. Closet space? Forget about it, though there was a basement and attic.

Many of the Georgians and Federal-style homes in the Washington area where I live are also tiny, compared to today's standards, most with only one bathroom on the second floor (a major hassle for families with young kids or elderly who cannot get up and down the steps easily).

What that tells me is not that the people who lived in those houses were doomed to daily misery; in fact, they were probably very happy to live in what was considered nice accommodations for the average middle-class family.

No, what it says is that we, of this generation, have grown up expecting much more -- and in some people's cases, much much more -- than our forebears did, and probably a lot more than we actually need.

I personally can't understand how the early owners of my house raised families as large as, an perhaps even larger than mine. We added on to the house (it's still not huge, but it feels more functional than before) just because we felt it would be a hardship to squeeze so many of us into it. But that was just what people of earlier generations came to accept.

Today, so many are building homes that make sense only for families of 8 or maybe even 12, even if they only have a couple or no kids. And they feel they can't live without many gadgets and furnishings. (So as not to offend any friends, I won't mention any specific item, but you know what I'm talking about.) They don't see these items as luxuries, which would be one thing, bur rather as necessities.

I'm no Luddite, and I'm not saying we should do without central air conditioning (I would die), garbage disposals (can't think of living without one), electric dishwashers (I could live without it, but it is nice) or cable TV. But, not to sound smug, but I also like having just enough space, which I do at roughly 2,400 square feet, and I don't miss a lot of the high-end amenities I see elsewhere.

I'm mostly thinking of the size of many houses I see these days, which are really big, some of them. They make you wonder about the cost of heating and cooling, as well as the maintenance and, of course, all the stuff people buy to fill up that space. I also don't understand the need in many homes to put a TV -- and big ones! -- everywhere. I watch a fair amount of TV, but I don't need it everywhere I turn.

There's no question that Wright's Usonian ideal was just that: something that sounded attractive to some in principle but was probably hard to achieve on a practical level (though some of the Usonian elements made their way into widespread home architecture, especially after the war). But what's noticeable is how far we Americans are today from that ideal and from a simpler and more frugal standard of living most of our parents and grandparents experienced -- and survived -- not so long ago.

Jeff
Photo above taken from http://www.virginia.org/site/description.asp?attrID=41799 

The Speech: Not There Yet But a Good Start

IT HAS TAKEN ME A FEW DAYS TO GET TO WRITING ABOUT BARACK OBAMA’S race relations speech the other day, which some are calling one of the greatest political speeches of all time and others are shooting down as a rhetorical sleight of hand. My delay has to do in part with my busy life and in part with my ambivalence about it.

Let’s start with the simple stuff: Contrary to much of the swooning that’s going on around Obama’s speech, there’s nothing terribly original about a politician addressing the subject of race. It may have been a great speech, as speeches go, but others have tread this ground much more than Obama has in this campaign.

Bill Clinton deserves a lot of credit, for example, for tackling it through his Presidential Commission on Race. Many more cynically minded people never gave the Commission a chance to succeed. Yes, it’s true, it did bog down a bit in side arguments about whether one group’s victimization was greater than others. But it was a good try, and Clinton waded into the subject quite often when his advisors strenuously urged him not to, fearing it would get him into trouble. I think the nation is better for his doing it, but certainly not entirely reconciled with the issue of race.

Certainly, the subject of race was much more of a front-burner issue during the 1960s through the ‘90s than it has been in the last eight years from some reason. Up to the late 1990s, it was a subject about which there was a lot of great writing and speech making (and a lot of silly, noisy rhetoric, too). I know, because in those days  I read everything I could on those subjects. Somehow, there seems to be far less talk about race these days, which is surprising given that the Bush Administration has done precious little to advance the discussion for the better or the worse. Or maybe it's because of it.

Obama’s speech, while noteworthy for opening the subject at all, doesn’t even approach the kind of candid and smart talk I heard up to about eight years ago. It simply reminds people that we have to get back to the talk about it. That's admirable but not epic, as many are portraying his speech.

Most importantly, I’m ambivalent about whether Obama should get a pass, as many are granting him, for indulging the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

I feel a bit like Obama tried to have it both ways when he condemned the words but not the man who delivered them. To me, that’s essentially an endorsement of the words, and it undermines the decency of many African Americans – and I know of many – who would simply have found another church if their pastor had acted this way.

But he has a point that what Wright said is a common theme in the black community - doesn't make it right, but there's something in it for all of us to learn from.

Like Obama’s speech itself, there’s nothing all that new about Wright’s comments. Anyone who has listened to African American radio or read African American newspapers will be familiar with this kind of stuff. Hurtful and potentially dangerous as it can be, whites who are surprised by such sentiment have simply not been paying attention, assuming, I guess, that we’ve ‘gotten past’ all our racial problems – which is itself a reason for African Americans to be frustrated.

I think it’s delusional and dangerous to say some of the things Wright said: that whites are responsible for giving blacks the AIDS virus or that we somehow sowed the seeds of the 9/11 attacks by our previous behaviors, and so on (I've heard much worse). I have long been annoyed and angered by so many African Americans’ unwillingness to distance themselves from this sort of crap.

Still, while the content of speeches like Wright’s may be beyond the pale, that doesn’t mean we should ignore the spirit or the intent of those speeches. There’s something driving it that is telling us that, while we’ve come a long way in a generation or so since Jim Crow, African America is not at all feeling that the journey is over. Many admirable legislative and private-sector initiatives have been put in place to ameliorate the legacy of racism, but there is still much to be despondent about, and the real debate is about whether that’s because of residual white racism.

Yes, it’s good that Obama took a chance, and it’s good to see that the reaction was, for the most part, thoughtful and possibly constructive. I don’t think he’s fully extricated himself from the tight spot that prompted his great speech in the first place, and I'm annoyed with everyone from assuming that he has. Nor did he plow any especially original ground, a so many have suggested he has. But he's on to something. I hope it’s not the last we’ll hear from him on the subject.

Jeff 

What Makes a President "Good for Israel"?

OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS, I’ve heard a number of Jewish friends say in private and other Jewish voices say in public that they worry that Barack Obama will be “bad for Israel.”

What’s most intriguing about these observations is that, while Obama is maddeningly vague and unspecific on practically every issue (which is mostly why I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary), these American Jews somehow seem to know for certain where he stands on Israel.

Much of the present whisper campaign against Obama seems curiously to have emanated from Jewish Republicans. For example Marc Zell, who identifies himself as Co-Chairman of Republicans Abroad in Israel (boy, there’s an organization for everything), went after Obama in a Jerusalem Post piece recently. So did the Republican Jewish Coalition, which regularly and shamelessly plays a more-pro-Israel-than-thou act, accusing Jewish Democrats of selling out the Jewish State. Strangely enough, for example, the RJC gladly quoted Ralph Nader recently, for saying that Sen. Obama was "pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate" and "during the state Senate." All of the sudden, Nader’s a credible source for the RJC.

But, to be fair the attacks on Obama don’t appear to be only the work of a Republican smear campaign. I’ve heard nervousness about Obama, too, in the voices of many committed Democrats who are Jewish.

Of course, everyone (even his supporters) is reading Obama's tea leaves.  He offered a little more substance (but not a lot) to his thinking about the Israeli-Arab conflict and about how he finds Louis Farrakhan unsavory, in some recent public utterances on the subject, meant to disarm the charges against him. I personally find what he said fairly unobjectionable, though his past statements such as, "Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people" are troubling in their ignorance.

Obama’s Jewish critics are focusing less on what he has said (or not said) than on the advisors who surround him –- “guilt by association,” he calls it.

Frankly, I think assessing any candidate by the company he keeps is fair game, especially in Obama’s case. While he may not himself know or want to articulate in detail what he will do on any of the wide range of policy challenges he would face as President, I have to believe –- or, better yet, I sincerely hope –- he will have the good judgment to bring in good people who know about specific issues. So it’s not unreasonable to look at the credentials and views of the people on his campaign foreign policy team.

On that criterion, Obama’s candidacy turns out to be a mixed bag, at least as far as some people are concerned. Some of his advisors (some of which are truly advising him, he says, and some are pretty much in name only) have reputations as solidly “good for Israel,” and a few –- really only a few –- have records that have for understandably concerned some in the pro-Israel community.

Even Martin Peretz, the Editor-in-Chief of The New Republic, and a full-throated supporter of Obama, conceded recently that a “charge, circulating on the Internet, has not yet been sufficiently refuted. This is that he has advisers on the Middle East who despise Israel.”

Interestingly, however, Peretz, is a hawkish supporter of Israel, which might surprise many who are responsible for or influenced by the anti-Obama whisper campaign.  “Barack Obama's views on Israel and the possibilities of peace between it and the Palestinians are both tough-minded and deeply comprehending,” Peretz wrote. “I don't at all think that I'd be disappointed with an Obama presidency, and certainly not with his attitude towards the Jewish State."

I really don't think Obama will be hostile to Israel. But the truth is, we never really know what someone’s position on Israel (or any other major policy issue) will be until he’s faced with real and difficult decisions as President of the United States. 

Most of the pro-Israel hardliners’ money in 2000 said that George W. Bush would be “good on Israel,” and in 2004, I heard that sentiment again, even from some Jewish Democrats who were concerned that John Kerry would not be sympathetic enough (based on seemingly no good evidence).

But who among those hardliners would have believed that George W. Bush would endorse –- as President! –- the idea of a fully autonomous Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel? Who would have thought that his administration would use up all-too-little political capital on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for most his presidency –- at least not until a few months ago in Annapolis when most of that political capital had waned? If pro-Israel supporters of candidate Bush had known that’s how President Bush’s term would have turned, I have to believe they would have roundly criticized him in 2000, and opposed him again in 2004, too.

And one has to wonder whether the invasion of Iraq, President Bush’s biggest foreign policy initiative -– and the perhaps the biggest foreign policy disaster in the history of the republic -– was ultimately good for Israel. I know a lot of pro-Israel people thought it would be (which is not to say, as some vile critics of Israel and Jews have, that the Jewish community somehow duped our nation’s leaders into this war). But in retrospect these pro-Israel supporters of the U.S. invasion of Iraq have to admit that things didn’t turn out the way they had hoped. Arguably, Israel’s neighborhood is even more dangerous and unstable now than it was before March 2003. Still think George W. Bush was “good for Israel”?

All of this, of course, prompts the question: what makes a U.S. President good for Israel? I’d love to hear everyone else’s thoughts, but here are a few from me (not necessarily an exhaustive list). He or she recognizes and acts on the principle that:

• Israel is an ally that shares the values of the U.S., and it is a critical fulcrum of economic and political progress in the Middle East.
• Israel is not to blame for all the calamities of the Middle East.
• The conflict in the Middle East is ostensibly between Israel and its Arab adversaries, but really between moderates (Arabs, Muslims, Jews and many others in the region), who would be happy living side-by-side, and extremists, who only want to create chaos.
• Israel has been forced to fight a frontline battle against extremism that is aimed not just at the Jewish state but at many other countries. For this reason, those countries should be respectful and sympathetic to Israel, which is fighting their war for them, not critical of its every action.
• Israel’s military actions are, at their root, defensive, borne of the necessity to protect its citizens and, indeed, its existence against those who threaten them.
• Israel is faced with a choice between two bad options: taking military action, which brings about resentment, rage and criticism from the international community, and not defending its citizens against terrorist attacks, an unconscionable path for any sovereign nation.
• A U.S. President must expend some energy and political capital to help move Israel and the Palestinians in the direction of reconciliation.
• There cannot be any progress unless there is an ironclad guarantee that any agreement will make Israelis secure and put Palestinians on a path to prosperity and peace for themselves.
• This is unlikely to materialize so long as there are parties, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, that are out to destroy Israel.
• Israelis truly want peace and deserve it.
• Palestinians, too, deserve what every human being deserves: peace, prosperity and happiness.

Enough for now. I’d like to hear others chime in.

Jeff

Stop Making Sense

YESTERDAY, I HEARD SOMEONE REFER TO THE HORRIFIC SHOOTING SPREE at Mercaz HaRav in Jerusalem on March 6 as something "we need to make sense of."

That's a familiar phrase we hear in the wake of such evil events as this, or mass killings at a school or another public place here in the U.S., or other terrorist attacks across the world. Media tell us of grieved survivors who are just 'trying to make some sense of this tragic loss.'

I seriously don't mean any disrespect to those who use this phrase. I think what they are really trying to say is that the survivors and others touched by the tragedies are "trying to cope." I'm sure they mean well and are just grasping at some words to express outrage and grief.

But, in this language, there is an embedded idea that somehow we can figure out what went on here, find meaning in the losses, even as there was no meaningful reason for them, and (another phrase that mystifies me) attain "closure."

The idea seems to be that we can make sense out of an act that has no good purpose and is nonsensical on its face. I don't want to make sense of these acts because it would treat them as more rational than they truly are. It would make explicable the inexplicable. To me that's a little too close to making them excusable.

Perhaps we can stop using this 'making sense' phrase in these situations.

Jeff

David Weintraub: 1927 to 2008

ON FEBRUARY 15, 2008, MY FATHER, DAVID WEINTRAUB, died after a tough battle with prostate cancer.

Knowing nothing about him other than his age, one might conclude that he had outlived so many of his peers, which is true. But, until the cancer truly overtook him in the fall of last year, he seemed much younger than his 81 years, still active and, as always, casting a large smile on everyone around him. He was still taking care of a lot of others: my mother, friends, members of the Sertoma Club and the Jewish War Veterans in which he was active, and, in some ways, me. He was, as he always liked to say, "in good shape for the shape I'm in." He had more living to do.

I wrote about him a year and a half ago, and about his return after 60 years to his home turf of Coney Island, Brooklyn. I learned a lot about him on that one day.

For more about what I learned that day and on many other days, please click this hyperlink --  Download david_weintraub_eulogy.Feb19.2008.doc -- to read the eulogy I delivered at his funeral on February 19. And if you knew him and would like to add your own recollections, please feel free to do so through the comment feature below.

Since he died, so many people have showered our family with old recollections about him. The common theme among all the kind words we heard was "he was a great guy" -- full of jokes, always smiling, always helping others.

That's as a good a legacy as anyone could ask for.

Jeff

What Are We Complaining About?

IN A LITTLE MORE THAN 48 HOURS, we Democrats could have a presidential nominee. When that happens, I hope that most Democrats believe, as I do, that, whatever happens, we should be feeling fortunate. I worry that they don't.

What I mean is that we have what I think is a choice between two strong candidates. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are, in my opinion, capable of winning and capable of running the federal government well. But the growing conflict between Clinton and Obama supporters seems headed for another episode of Democrats doing everything possible to lose a near sure thing.

Both Clinton and Obama offer different, but equally valuable qualities. Clinton is a policy wonk who knows a lot about a lot of issues, and she is thoughtful and passionate about them. She's a marvelous antidote to a president who not only seems unfamiliar and often awkward with the major needs of the American public, he also seems incapable of making decisions himself and of reigning over the rogue and wrong "deciders" within his own White House. Okay, some people thinks Hillary's not sweet and warm (something I think is more of a hyped myth than a reality, though I don't know her any better than her critics do). But, let's face it: we're not electing someone to tuck us into bed at night.

Obama offers inspiration, no question about it. That's something I tend to value less than wonkery. But I have to admit that it counts for a lot in a President, who must quell fears and build the confidence necessary to move people -- and I mean all American people, not just the ones who share his party affiliation -- in the right direction. Franklin Roosevelt had that ability; so did Winston Churchill, who was also the utlimate policy wonk.

Contrary to what a lot of others think, I feel that Hillary Clinton has an ample supply of charisma to offer America. (And that's why, when it comes down to it, I'll vote for her in the primary because she combines a greater command of the issues than Obama, who has been too vague about many of his positions for my tastes, and because she still brings a lot of inspiration to the job.) But even she and her biggest fans would have to admit that Obama may be one of the most spellbinding speakers and political personalities on the national scene. Much as that might not get me to pull the lever for him, I think it still counts for a lot.

So we Dems should be happy, right? An embarrassment of riches, and all that. We can't lose with either of these candidates.

Well, no. Anecdotally, I still hear a lot of unhappiness -- and downright hostility -- between the Clinton and Obama supporters I know. And, while I think the media blew way out of proportion the public criticisms the candidates and their surrogates levelled between the camps (see clips one and two from the Daily Show for a great satirical commentary on this point), there seem to be way too many people who will actually be upset and even alienated if either candidate wins. I've been hearing about and witnessing angry verbal squabbles. I wouldn't be surprised, based on what I'm hearing now, if some Dems turn their backs on either Obama or Clinton when the general comes around.

That's such a waste and counterproductive, of course. Do we really want to blow this one? How does "President McCain" sound to you?

I'm not saying drop your principles. But I am saying that we have two great candidates to choose from. The problem is everyone expects perfect, according to their own values and needs. But, as they say, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Jeff

"What is the Matter With You People?"

Yesterday's Sunday comics section included a Doonesbury strip that I think says a lot about the relationship between the Islamic world and the West.

The strip (which is a "Flashback," meaning it ran once before, I think in 2007) shows two soldiers -- one of them American, the other Iraqi -- in an armored vehicle patrolling through a tough neighborhood in Iraq. Their dialogue begins:

American soldier: "Ready to do this, partner?"
Iraqi soldier: "ZZZ."
AS: "Great!... Okay, that's the safe house -- the big white building at the end of the street."
IS: "I know this house. The owner is Sunni scum."
AS: "Oh, yeah?... Well, intel wants us to capture the guy alive."
IS: "This will not be possible. I am sworn to vengeance!"
AS: "Why? What'd he ever do to you?"
IS: "A member of his family killed a member of mine."
AS: "What? When did this happen?"
IS: "1387"
AS: "What is the matter with you people?"

Whether or not this exchange reflects reality, Garry Trudeau is saying, within only a few frames and with only few words, that cultural differences between the Islamic world and the West are immense. Trudeau reflects not a "clash of civilizations," as so many of us want to believe exists, but rather the first-time encounter of two people who don't really know or understand one another.

The American in the strip views Muslims as one big, backward and dysfunctional family that is trapped in the past and unprepared for the present. He finds the Iraqi's talk of sectarian revenge -- based, no less, on something that happened more than 600 years ago -- incomprehensible. The Iraqi does not understand the cultural vocabulary of the American or fully grasp the reality of the moment. He sleeps through his patrol and is willing to ignore what sounds like a reasonable command, possible triggering a dangerous showdown.

For his part, the Iraqi embraces history as something truly meaningful and relevant today, even if it means ignoring the realities of the present. Americans tend not to look back too much on the past, or to understand why it stands for so much to other cultures.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to say how fair these characterizations are generally of people on both sides Muslim/Western divide. But I'm glad that Trudeau gets us thinking at least about what we all don't know. That's precisely what Akbar Ahmed, a professor of Islamic studies at American University, does, though he can fill in the gaps for us. Ahmed (about whom I have written before and for whom I have done some p.r. work) is foremost a translator between people who do not know each other and who literally and cultural speak completely different languages.

In other words, he occupies a critical role at a time when Islam and the West needs people like him the most. Through his many books, documentaries, lectures, diplomacy (he was Pakistan's High Commissioner to the U.K.) and plays, he has been a prime interpreter of Islam to the West, helping us get past the misguided shorthands we have about Muslims. At the same time, he interprets the West to the Islamic world, which swirls with myths and downright bizarre assumptions about Westerners.

If there is one message that Westerners would do well to take from Ahmed, it is that Islam is more complex than we truly comprehend. In his recent book, "Journey Into Islam: The Crisis of Globalization," which was the product of anthropological visits to eight or nine Islamic countries in the Arab Middle East, South Asia and East Asia, Ahmed leaves no doubt that Islam expresses itself in countless ways, often within a single country or region and even within a single family.

Moreover, he argues that the very encounter with the West -- lately through the fast-moving, border-busting phenomenon of "globalization" -- has brought about many different challenges and responses in many parts of the Islamic world that were previously mostly insulated from the outside.

Islamic reactions to that encounter with the outside world are mixed, Ahmed shows, describing them using three broad typologies. "Islam's response to the forces of globalization... takes at least least three distinct forms: mystics reach out to other faiths, traditionalists want to preserve the purity of Islam, and modernists attempt to synthesize society with other non-Muslim systems" he writes in "Journey Into Islam." "Because most people in the West do not understand the complexity of Muslim society through models such as [these], they reduce understanding of U.S. relations with the Muslim world to good versus evil, and divide Muslims crudely into moderate versus extreme."

These three models "have been in play for the last two centuries," Ahmed  told an audience at the Brookings Institution last June when discussing his book. "This is an ongoing dynamic, an ongoing dialectic within Muslim society. Since the first impact with Western colonization in the middle of the 19th Century, and you are seeing, in a sense, the drama being played out right now. 9/11 was a catalyst. It escalates the drama, but it does not create the drama."

America's and the West's failure to understand the complexities of the Islamic world, Ahmed writes in the book, has led to much of the miscalculation and disaster that is the Iraq war. The U.S., he says, "needs to quickly appreciate the nuances of these societies. Muslims widely complain of the lack of justice, widespread corruption and collapse of law and order. Too frequently, the United States backs strong military intervention, unaware of how this support encourages turmoil and how negatively this support is seen within a country."

At the Brookings event about "Journey Into Islam," scholar Stephen P. Cohen seconded Ahmed's analysis by pointing out that a "wonderful euphemism that is circulating around Washington is kinetic solution, that is, beating up somebody or shooting them. Kinetic solutions don’t work. If you have to use a kinetic solution, that is, shoot them, you have already lost the war especially the war of ideas."

"America’s great strength," Cohen continued, "its practical approach to problem-solving, has really become a weakness of ours. We don’t take the time to listen, to understand, if not to respect, at least to understand other cultures and civilizations. The policy implications here are really get out and talk, meet with people, reestablish the libraries around the world. We used to be culture centers for many countries. I know in Pakistan when I first went there I think there were eight different American centers. There are zero now. In Pakistan and other countries, the American center, the American library was often the cultural and intellectual center point of local and national dialogue about their states as well as relations with the U.S. These kinds of institutions have disappeared around the world. They are still relevant. They are still powerful. We really need to rebuild them to be able to compete in the world."

Ahmed's criticisms of the Muslim world are the mirror image of those he has of the West.

• "Muslims need to recognize that the most effective 'weapons' for addressing their grievances are knowledge and reason, rather than brute force...."
• "Muslim leaders must [also] strive to live up to their own vision of the ideal society. Too many Arab rulers use the crutch of Israel directly or indirectly to avoid working toward democracy until that 'problem' is solved."
• If Muslims had reacted to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq with restraint rather than violence, it "would have impressed people in the West and created sympathy for Muslim causes. As it happened, the beheadings, the suicide bombings, and the hyperbolic rtheroric of violence... confirmed already existing steteotypes of Muslims. Very soon, people in the West began to equate violence and terrorism with Islam itself... and see all Muslims as inherently bloodthirsty...."

So, to paraphrase the American soldier's question in the Doonesbury strip: What is the matter with all these people? "Ignorance of other cultures leads to serious policy mistakes, whether conducting warfare of peace negotiations," Ahmed answers.

The real task, then, is to accelerate the pace with which we eliminate that ignorance among as many people on both sides of the divide as possible.

Jeff

What If Ted Baxter Were President?

APPARENTLY, I MISSED THE BIG NEWS, when it came out nearly a month ago that CNN anchor Lou Dobbs had waved off suggestions that he might run for President. That's right, of the United States.

"I'm an advocacy journalist," Dobbs told the Detroit Free Press. "I cannot imagine being a candidate for any office and certainly not president. I would be the candidate of last resort."

Any real, self-effacing "journalist" would have merely laughed at the question. But Dobbs had to give some justification as to why he wouldn't run. "I'm an advocacy journalist!"

(Well, at least Dobbs is honest about one thing: there's nothing objective or dispassionate about his rants on CNN prime business show. It's advocacy! Now it can be told! One has to wonder how the Cable NEWS Network can continue to justify what Dobbs does as news. What it must certainly be is a ratings grabber, which is the only reason I can think CNN would continue to leave him on the air, particularly in such a prominent time slot.)

But the Free Press interview was then. This is now. Like a latter-day Ted Baxter, so giddy that anyone would even suggest he run for President, Dobbs recently told the Wall Street Journal, "I cannot say never."

Reminds me a bit of the time many years ago when Arnold Schwarzenegger, appearing on the David Letterman Show, said with a straight face, "I am the best thing that ever happened to the Kennedy family." Like Dobbs's statement to the Journal, that line got a huge laugh. But the difference is that Schwarzenegger was joking -- spoofing himself, really. 

Dobbs's sense of self-importance also rose its ugly head when he told the Free Press last month: "These two parties are great about discussing wedge issues like gun control, or abortion or gay marriage but have little to offer in dealing with issues and challenges that matter to most people like free trade or illegal immigration."

I'm not sure that free trade or illegal immigration are issues that matter most to most Americans, though they're important. There's no doubt, however, that Dobbs has done a brilliant job of whipping a committed core of Americans who do care about these issues into a frenzy. Many people give him a lot of credit -- along with many of the other disingenuous talk show shouters -- for derailing the comprehensive federal immigration reform bill that was up for consideration on Capitol Hill last year.

And, because the federal government is now doing nothing to address a policy matter that should have been fixed a long time ago, Dobbs and his posse are beating up on the feds and Congress for, what else, doing nothing. If this problem of immigration policy ever got fixed, what would Dobbs have to talk about? Oh, of course, the evils of outsourcing.

What he probably won't acknowledge is that most of those Americans who care about the immigration problem don't really agree with where him and other restrictionists on some core points. As the Pew Research Center found in a survey last June, while many Americans were ambivalent about whether the immigration reform bill was a good one (regardless of political affiliation, only about a third favored it and large percentages -- about one quarter to one third, depending upon affiliation -- were undecided), most favored "a way for people who are in this country illegally to gain legal citizenship under certain conditions," according to the Pew Research Center's findings.

"Overall, 63 percent of the public -- and nearly identical numbers of Republicans, Democrats and independents -- favor such an approach if illegal immigrants 'pass background checks, pay fines and have jobs,'" the Pew Research Center concluded.

What's more, according to the survey, "In general, the public is less supportive of providing 'amnesty' for illegal immigrants than it is of providing a way for illegal immigrants to gain citizenship. Even so, a majority of Americans (54 percent) say they favor amnesty for illegal immigrants already in the country if they pass background checks and meet other conditions."

If that's the case, then why are the presidential candidates -- especially the Republicans -- contorting themselves to avoid saying anything about immigration, let alone utter the word "amnesty?" Maybe they're worried that Dobbs if takes himself so seriously, he'll actually run for President.

Jeff

Are America's Presidential Elections Un-American?

THE FIRST OFFICIAL VOTES have been cast in the run-up to America’s quadrennial elections of a president, and, once again, I can’t help but feel there’s something un-American about what’s going on.

I’m not talking about whether our method of electing presidents – which relies too heavily on cash from supporters and so-called “special interests” and is prejudiced by whether or not media commentators declare one or another candidate “electable,” thus scaring off all the supporters and “special interest” money – subverts the very principle of democracy. It’s a lousy way to seek the will of the people, but it’s our lousy way.

What I mean is that every four years (actually, it seems like all the time now, what with candidates’ pilgrimages to Iowa and New Hampshire almost as soon as the last presidential election ends) we obsess about whether one candidate has the character and ideas to lead the country. Countless profiles plumb the depths of each candidate’s personal history looking for those defining attributes and moments of epiphany that illustrate whether he or she is fit to hold the highest public office in the land.

More to my point, so many of us Americans convince ourselves that if we can only put this one person in  office, life as we know it will be transformed for the better. The economy will improve; social problems will be resolved; the general physical and mental well-being of all Americans will be better; the sun will shine every day.

Of course, I generalize and exaggerate, which is always dangerous, especially in the absence of empirical data. But anyone who pays even a little attention to the public and private discourse about our nation’s politics and listens to others describe their hopes and fears as they consider which candidate to support, can’t help but conclude that many of us are waiting for a Messiah to make it all better.

That sentiment feels so un-American to me. The political culture of this country, established by Enlightenment thinkers and reinforced over and over since then, is one that deemphasizes the importance of our leaders. This is not a monarchy or a dictatorship, where we must do whatever the Big Guy tells us. Indeed, our founders had precisely the opposite in mind when they laid down the fundamental American political creed, and this rejection of an aristocracy became one of the chief attributes of what is known as “American Exceptionalism.”

Another defining feature of “American Exceptionalism” is individualism (sorry for all the –isms). Especially as compared to people from many other cultures around the world, Americans to this day remain fiercely individualistic. This attribute has been an asset at many times; individualism has been the ballast of innovation and entrepreneurship, which have made America strong, and continue to. Individualism, though, can also be a liability, as a collection of individuals often struggles to find a common identity or cause that binds them.

My purpose is to ask rhetorically how it is that such an anti-aristocratic, individualistic people nevertheless fixate so much on a single person who will take over the White House (and the same can be said, I think, for many other public offices).  Why do so many of us place so much hope in the one person and almost give ourselves over to him or her? Why do we make such a big deal about these elections?

It is ironic that even American Enlightenment thinkers and public figures of that era were themselves treated like royals by their own contemporaries. I’m thinking in particular of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, who were icons of their time.  And throughout American history we have looked to the White House and to our military leadership as the saviors who will bring us from calamity to prosperity.

It shouldn’t matter to a group of individualistically- minded people who our leader is, should it? By definition, an individualistic, anti-elitist American should just get on with his work no matter who is in office. In fact, that’s often the case. Many American institutions, for example, don’t wait around for our political leaders to figure out what to do about the thorny political issues of the day, such as the status of gays and lesbians, affirmative action and environmental protection. Many private businesses, religious groups and universities often figure out how to solve such ideological logjams long before the politicians do.

So often, though, it has been the case that our leaders – the good ones, at least – use their status as a way of mobilizing this nation of individuals toward common goals. While not everyone agreed with him during his time as President, Abraham Lincoln was certainly one of those leaders. In fact, with the Gettysburg Address and many other utterances and actions, he deepened our understanding and acceptance of the American Creed. Franklin Roosevelt did the same by saying, through his words and policies during the Depression and the war, that we are all in this together and each of us has a role to play in overcoming failure.

What history and our own contemporary experience tell us is that, notwithstanding the American Creed of individualism and anti-elitism individual leaders do matter in America. The Creed has not gone away; its impulses remain alive and well today. But even a nation of individuals – perhaps, especially such a nation – needs an empowered, though not unchecked president. That’s not just because of the policies and ideologies presidents bring with them to their offices, but also because of their capacity for mobilizing people toward good and bringing them together to combat threats and solve problems.

As George W. Bush has shown, incompetent leaders - especially those who ignore or fail to understand our American Creed, who can't to mobilize the best gifts of its people and who arrogantly (one could say aristocratically) act as though only they can know what is right - can be disastrous. And such leaders can ruin our precious relationships and standing among others around the world. In other words, leaders do matter. A nation that fails to recognize and address such failure - as we did in 2004 - is destined for more failure.

So in an odd sort of way, our quadrennial presidential election ritual, flawed as it is, might appear (at least to me) as slightly un-American. But it’s something that we Americans need now more than ever.

Jeff 

A Race to the Bottom

ONE OF THE MOST MEMORABLE MOMENTS IN THE MOVIE "BROADWAY DANNY ROSE," Woody Allen's 1984 comedy (and, for my money, Allen's funniest) about a two-bit talent agent, comes when the title character stumbles upon a pissing match between two alleged mobsters at a a backyard barbecue somewhere in New Jersey.

In front of a small gathering of fellow partygoers, the two wise guys are trying to outdo each other by saying that "money ain't so important to me." And to prove how little they care about money, they rip up hundred dollar bills in front of everyone, each time tearing up more and more bills from huge wads. One wonders just how far they will go, who will stop first. From the pained looks on their faces, they to appear to be hoping that someone will tackle them and put an end to the nonsense. But Danny Rose leaves the the scene before we see who blinks first or how this will turn out.

The latest spat between Repubulican Presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rudolph Giuliani over who sounds tougher on illegal immigrants reminds me of this money ripping scene. Again, one wonders just how far they can take it, how much they can posture, how bad ass they can sound. Who knows where it will end.

Their clash, which the Washington Post reported on in some detail on August 17, focuses on Romney's and Giuliani's policies of dealing with illegal immigrants when they were, respectively, Governor of Massachussetts and and Mayor New York City.

Romney and his surrogates have accused Giuliani of enacting a policy as Mayor that effectively encouraged illegal immigrants to settle in New York and looked the other way once they were there. Indeed, as the Post article reports, "In his first year as mayor in 1994, [Giuliani] said of illegal immigrants: 'If you come here, and you work hard, and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city.'" What's more, he was known, as I pointed out in my last post, as a champion of immigrants.

Giuliani deflects this by blasting the federal government for not taking tough enough measures to enforce the rule of law and to deport illegals. He also has suggested the Romney's adminstration did little to identify and get rid of illegals in Massachusetts when he was Governor.

It's sad, really, that Giuliani has so distanced himself from his most admirable posture as a pro-immigration (but not pro-illegal immigrant!) advocate. It's sad that he has not had the courage to stand up to the rising tide of antipathy for immigrants and immigration in the U.S. right now. He could play a valuable role as a teacher to those who don't understand the value of immigrants and immigration to America, and he could help draw a bright and careful line between illegal immigrants and legal immigrants, a line that I worry has gotten awful blurry in the minds of many Americans.

But he probably feels that his job is not to teach and not to go against the tide right now. He's running for President. He cannot afford to piss anyone off. He's got to fish where the most fish are. That's what the smart political consultants are obviously telling him, Romney and the other candidates, many of whom have been equally undistinguished when it comes to this issue.

And they've seen John McCain get hammered for his strong support of the ill-fated immigration reform bill in the Senate,  They don't want to end up in the same ditch with him. From the point of view of running a campaign, which is just about getting elected, that's perfectly understandable, if unsettling.

But consider this: whom are Giuliani, Romney and the other political leaders who refuse to stand up to the anti-immigrant tide alienating? True, in the shorter run, immigrant voters -- the largest among them Latino -- probably aren't going to help either Giuliani, Romney or any Republican win their primary and perhaps not even the general election (though that's debatable). Most of them (and I'm talking about legal immigrants who are citizens, because only they can vote) aren't Republicans. Indeed, while they represent a growing and dynamic community, they are not voting in large numbers.

Right now.

But at some point, maybe not too far in the future, guys like Giuliani or Romney will want to turn to immigrant voters and their extended communities, and what can they expect from from these communities? Nada, baby. Once again, Republicans are mortgaging their future relationship with immigrant communities and other ethnic groups that have been based on immigration.

I would argue, too, that the rest of us, non-first generation immigrants, who rely heavily on the immigrant community in our daily lives, ought to see how this race to the bottom -- the effort by politicians to outdo one another on their anti-immigrant bone fides -- hurts our own self-interest. We should let them know how we feel in town hall meetings and at the ballot box.

Jeff

P.S. Click here for the trailer to "Broadway Danny Rose." And, while this has nothing to do with the subject above, I can't resist including some precious lines from the script:
*
Danny Rose: If you take my advice, you'll become one of the great balloon-folding acts of all time! Really, 'cause I don't just see you folding balloons in joints. You listen to me, you're gonna fold balloons at universities and colleges.
*
Tina Vitale: I like it when he takes the microphone off the stand and sort of throws the microphone from hand to hand.
Danny Rose: That's my gesture. I gave him that.
Tina Vitale: Years ago he took the microphone off the stand.
Danny Rose: But he didn't throw it from hand to hand. I used to do that in nightclub acts.
Tina Vitale: So you taught him to throw the microphone from hand to hand...
Danny Rose: I taught him everything he knows.
*
Tina Vitale: They shot him in the eyes.
Danny Rose: Oh my God, he's blind?
Tina Vitale: He's dead...
Danny Rose: Of course, the bullets would go right through...

Who Will Tell the People the Truth About Immigration?

SINCE THE DEFEAT OF THE IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO in the U.S. Senate, we've heard most analysts say that this will be the last chance for this Congress and this Administration to attempt any such broad-sweeping overhaul.

Next year, they note, is an election year, so no sane politician, especially those who are standing for reelection, would dare bring up such a dangerously controversial policy matter, no matter how badly this country needs to retool what everyone agrees is a broken immigration system. Indeed, it seems we don't even have to be in an election year for the politicians to be stepping gingerly around the issue. Many on both sides of the partisan divide who we had assumed favored some sort reform scrambled for the cover of "no" votes at the last moment for fear that they would run into a buzz saw of voter discontent (and opposition distortion) in 2008.

Sadly, they have reason to be concerned. We all know about the tsunamis of phone calls and e-mails that swamped Senate offices, incited, some believe, by right-wing talk radio shouters and other anti-immigrant (or, more kindly: "restrictionist") rabble rousers.

And we've heard about instances like the one I mentioned last week of Prince William County, Virginia, which was considering a local measure to prohibit access to public services to illegal immigrants. The measure eventually passed, as this story in the Washington Post reports, though it was softened a bit from the proposed version. My favorite quote from the story came from Woodbridge, Va.'s Chris King, who supported the measure because it would supposedly stop the cultural decay that immigrants have brought to the community: "I'm tired of pressing '1' for English" on the phone," he said.

Okay, I'm being a little cheeky; in today's Post, there is a story about how many immigrant residents of the very same Prince William County have a tendency to keep chickens in their suburban backyards -- which is a violation of local zoning laws and such a terrible annoyance to other neighbors that many are moving out and property values are dropping. I won't dismiss that, just as has always been the case, immigrants often clash with the dominant American culture and the romantic notion of the melting pot should not always trump the hardship that it can create for others. There are laws and mores that newcomers must follow.

Just yesterday, The Gallup Poll released some emipirical data that, I'm sorry to say, backs up much of the anecdotal evidence our politicians have been reacting to. It basically demonstrates that most Americans think immigrants have detriminent impacts on the the nation's economy, morality, crime and tax situation.

                   

For each of   the following areas, please say whether immigrants to the United States   are making the situation in the country better or worse, or not having much   effect. How about -- [RANDOM ORDER]?
2007 Jun 4-24 based   on "better"   (sorted by "total")	Better	Worse	Not much   effect	Net better   minus worse
	%	%