OBAMA BOUNCES BACK WITH A BANG

THE PLIGHT OF OBAMA PRIOR TO THE STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH

It is a year since Obama’s last State of the Union address. And in the past year there has been nothing but frustration and more frustration. In spite of coming off a resounding second term victory he has been able to get very little done. The Republicans bereft of any policy and split right down the middle have made a virtue out of necessity - Do nothing other than attack Obamacare and blame the President that he is getting nothing done and hope that no-one will notice it is because of them that he cannot get anything done. 

In 2013 Obama asked for forty - one legislative initiatives and got two. There were no new jobs programs, gun control or immigration reform that were his priorities last year. In the interim the Republicans really got lucky when the Obamacare website failed and the insurance companies, blindsided him by closing plans after he had reassured everyone that they could stay on. Then there was the IRS,  Snowden and the National Security mess, Benghazi - all of which were not much, but added to the Republican narrative that, maybe, just maybe, the President was the problem and not them. Jay H. Ell could sense Obama’s frustration as his hair grew grayer and grayer. With 24/7 media coverage and everybody looking for an angle he became irritated with the media too. He was also having problems with the White House Administration and brought in the Clintonite, Leon Podesta, to help out. 

Then the Republican Robert Gates, who Obama had generously kept on as Secretary of Defense, in one of his never ending futile attempts to show bipartisanship, ratted on him. Gates criticized Obama in a sanctimonious and self righteous memoir about the Commander in Chief's ambivalence on Afghanistan.  Why Obama chose Gates is still a mystery to Jay H. Ell. He reeked duplicity and was knee deep in the Iran Contra scandal. There have been detailed criticisms of Gate’s memoir including the fact that he blurbed about Obama's ambivalence in the middle of a Presidential term - if you can’t express your doubts on Defense to your own Secretary of Defense who can you go to  - your therapist? However one fact tells it all Gates has virtually no criticism of  Bush and his Iraq war where he too was the Minister of Defense. But once again the media were more involved in creating salacious headlines and one liners than they were to sass out the reality of it all. And it proved yet another distraction to the embattled President.

To add insult to injury the President was now being blamed for the changed poll numbers for the 2014 Congressional elections. Was he a handicap to the Democratic chances in 2014?  Also liberal Democrats were disappointed at Obama’s lack of radicalism. Pundits pointed to his low approval ratings round about 44% forgetting that the Democrats generally were about 27% and the Republicans were at 17%. - all of this just reflective of the electorate’s unhappiness at their politicians in general. 

STATE OF THE UNION - OBAMA COMES OUT SWINGING

It was with all this as a background that the media awaited his State of the Union address. What would his approach and demeanor be? Could he bounce back? Politics has become a reality show to the media who are now far more interested in style than substance. Would he come out fighting? Would he cowered by his low poll numbers and his impotence? It is well known that Obama takes his State of the Union speeches very seriously and works and reworks them for months.

Obama signaled his intentions by using his Executive privilege to increase the minimum wage of Federal Contract workers to $10.10, up over 30%, the morning prior to the speech. The day before his Press Secretary announced Obama’s modus operandi. He stated, “The President has embraced the idea in the past that he can use his authority and the powers available to the President to advance his agenda for the American people. What we have said is that 2014 was a year of action and he has tasked his team to come up with new ways that he can advance that agenda.” He invited Congress to follow his example and Boehner took the bait and attacked the President for going it alone. The President too can make a virtue out of necessity and get the Republicans to knock every financial equity issue that the polls show that he is on the right side off. 

So one knew from the get go that the President would be up front with his theme of correcting the financial inequities that he has made a priority of his second term. Unemployment and job creation would have to front and central as the other two legs of the trifecta.

OBAMA THE  CHARISMATIC ORATOR

Obama is at his best at the hustings. There is no-one but no-one that can match his eloquence in full flight.  No - one can captivate an audience, deliver, construct a speech of immense width and depth, weave a blanket of policies into a coherent whole, inspire, create theater and use personal stories to illustrate his philosophy and politics, like Obama. No- one can hit the right tone and passion at the right time like Barack Obama. This skill and talent was the one that catapulted him into the Presidency. The Republicans hated it all. They just sat back and hoped it would just end. But Obama went on and on for over an hour and attention never flagged and he ended with a dramatic tribute to a severely wounded Afghanistan war  veteran. The latter epitomizing what he believed was the essence of America. As Jay H. Ell has blogged again and again, to the Republicans’ chagrin there is no - one more American than Obama. Yet their mantra is that he is an alien and from the another world. 

So Obama was the Obama that was elected twice to the Presidency, and unbowed by his setbacks, was back in the saddle. And as always he will be following this up with going back on the stump where he is most at home. 

THE OBAMA AGENDA  2014 - “A YEAR OF ACTION”. 

The Obama agenda has not varied much over the 5 years. It is essentially a liberal agenda trying to even the playing field with equal opportunity, creating jobs, distributive justice of the Country's resources, fixing a broken Health Care System, equal opportunity for a comprehensive education from preschool to College, raising the minimum wage, cobbling a comprehensive immigration reform basically for the Latinos, providing more social services, minority rights and getting out of wars.

The speech focussed on the rights of and the role of women - Obama’s biggest constituency. He maintained that it was inexcusable that in the year 2014 women were earning 77 cents to the dollar that men earned for the same work. He carried on by extolling the virtues of women. He did not need to belabor the fact that this was not rhetoric - his high profile female appointments, his push for rooting out sexual misconduct in the military, his actions that solely impact on women in the Health Care Legislation, like preventive services, reproductive options and equal costs for insurance, are out there for all to see. 

Although Obama labeled 2014 a year of action he acknowledged that he was not going to obtain too much co - operation from Congress. After the usual mandatory and now even perfunctionary offers for bipartisanship, that even he has come to terms with is not going to happen, he declared that he would go it alone where he could.

“AMERICA DOES NOT STAND STILL AND NEITHER WILL I”

Obama, in calling to make progress and to speed up the growth of the middle class and “create ladders of opportunity to all”, juxta opposed their situation with the fortunes of those at the “top”, growth of the economy, corporate profits and soaring share prices, He would enact executive orders, where he could, to help American families. What Obama can actually do is limited. His powers are derived from two sources -  delegated from Congress and those inherent to his position. The latter is where he must have constitutional lawyers working night and day to see where he might intervene. Even if what he does is symbolic, like raising the Federal workers’ minimum wage or allowing Latinos who were born here to apply for citizenship, he sends a strong message.

He also laid out initiatives that were taking place at the behest of the White House including Michelle Obama’s highly successful program to prevent obesity in children. The President then outlined action he was to undertake in the future with groups such a as businessmen. These types of ventures that require no legislation or executive order would become a mechanism whereby he could move the Country forward.

These extra congressional moves really places the Republicans in a bind. Obama will get all the credit for popular moves that they will have no input in. It separates him from the “do nothing Congress”. No longer is he standing around waiting for Godot. This will force the Republicans to begin to offer alternate plans. There is not much time to get this going and as Jay H. Ell predicted  they would really be in a fix if their central plank in their policy - attack Obamacare - came unstuck, which is beginning to happen.

OBAMACARE.

Obama hammered home the obvious advantages of his centerpiece legislation. Children up to the age of twenty-six could remain on their parents’ policies, no -one could be excluded from insurance with preexisting conditions but most significantly that 9 million people had insurance that previously hadn’t. (This number includes at least 3 million who have joined via the Obamacare legislation of which 800,000 are now on Medicaid. and an additional 3 million are the children under 26.) Now there are still two full months to go for registration. All this with no co- operation from 25  Republican controlled States.  He chided the Republicans not to try and reverse the law another 40 times in this Congress session and rather offer some positive contributions. He would look into them.

UPBEAT

While Obama ended on the poignant note of that severely wounded soldier that epitomized the patriotism, guts and character of the nation, he began with the laundry list of his Administration’s achievements. These encompassed economic growth, lowest unemployment figures for years, energy development and the growing independence of the US on energy sources, the increase in manufacturing jobs for the first time in 20 years, increasing investment in America and decreasing deficits. The President claimed that this could be a breakthrough year if America invested in creating more jobs, in education and research. All areas that had been paired back by Republican austerity measures. He believed that America was on the cusp of  greatness and could continue to be take the lead in the world and innovation and progress.

This was just the red meat his Democratic  Congressmen needed. In a tough election year facing astronomical financing by the Republicans and voter suppression they needed a shot in the arm and their President delivered.

SMUTS: THE MAN WHO MIGHT HAVE PREVENTED APARTHEID

Many factors contribute to the recognition of icons that dominate an era or a period. Timing, significance, circumstances under which the figures operate and the ultimate perceptions of their role are some of the factors that play a part in whether they are immortalized. Jay H. Ell would like to focus on one such giant who has slipped under the radar screen both nationally and internationally  - the South African, Jan Christiaan Smuts, (1870 - 1950). South Africa, for a small country, has had the remarkable distinction of having four Nobel Peace winners - Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, F. W. de Klerk and Albert Luthuli. The latter an earlier leader of the ANC was a humble colossus who was part of the bedrock of opposition to apartheid in it’s earlier days. (Luthuli was a man of absolute conviction and integrity and who stuck to his non violent credo in the face of humiliation and abuse by the apartheid government). Everybody and every organization, supportive of change, who wanted his advice and imprimatur he obliged. Jay H. Ell remembers how gracious he was when he accepted the position of the Honorary Presidency of the non racial National Union of South African Students. But at least Luthuli is recognized in post apartheid South Africa if still largely unknown to the world. Smuts for his part, had an airport named after him that had its name changed - one of the few significant name changes that the post apartheid government effected. He is lumped with the whole racist Afrikaner Nationalist history and is very non politically correct in anti - apartheid circles. Smuts is, on the other hand, ironically, similarly overlooked by modern day South African writers when looking at the early history of twentieth century white rule. They rather focus on the evolution of the ultimate progenitors of apartheid.

      SMUTS DOMINATED WHITE SOUTH AFRICA FOR 50    YEARS

So neither side claims him as their own. But Smuts completely dominated the first half of twentieth Century white South African rule and at the same time strutted large on the world stage. There too he has been largely overlooked and his legacy is as a supporter of apartheid and white segregationist rule. At best this is a very simplistic assessment of a highly complex man and ignores several dimensions including the time and era that he operated in.

COMETH THE TIME COMETH THE MAN?

Some historical figures are forgiven for their behavior that was in tandem with the norm in their era and the focus remains on their achievements. Thomas Jefferson, the father of American Democracy verbalized the concept of “inalienable rights” and the idea of protections against tyranny by the majority. Yet he was the owner of hundreds of slaves. He believed in the education of, literally, every man - woman not as yet. He has known to have cohabited with at least one of his slaves - could have hardly been a relationship based on equal power differential. Yet Jeffersonian democracy is what it is all about. Abe Lincoln would have not ventured offering the newly emancipated slaves a vote. That had to wait yet another 100 years. In other words politicians regardless of their beliefs can only go so fast and no faster. Jefferson apparently was against slavery and Lincoln would have loved to have given the “Negroes" the franchise. It is all such a slow process. In the words of Nelson Mandela it is “A Long Walk To Freedom”.

However, the consensus on Smuts was that he was more of the same as the progenitors of apartheid. Yet the election he lost to the Nationalists in 1948 was fought over the issue of the introduction of apartheid which he vigorously opposed. One serious commentator, Keppel - Jones was then prompted to write a book entitled, “When Smuts Goes”.  This prophesied the future of South Africa sans Smuts. There Jones envisioned a United Nations force ultimately liberating a racist South Africa.  So at least Smuts deserves another look before finally relegating him to the dustbin of history.

IN THE BEGINNING.

Smuts, an Afrikaner, was born into the politics of conflict between the two white groups that had colonized Southern Africa - the English and the Afrikaner or Boer, who were of Dutch extraction. The latter had a much longer history in South Africa, having been there almost 150 years earlier. The conquering English were deeply resented by the Afrikaners as they had taken away their slaves as well as driving them out of two Provinces, the Cape and Natal which they had governed. (Both Allen Drury - “A Very Strange Society" and James Michener - “The Covenant”, captured the conflict and the roots superbly).

Smuts was exceptional academically and after graduating, at a young age, he went to Cambridge, on a scholarship, where he studied law. According to Smuts, in his own writings, Lord Todd, the Master of Christ College Cambridge, claimed that the College had produced three outstanding minds in the past 500 years - John Milton, Charles Darwin and Jan Smuts.

Smuts on returning to Cape Town South Africa began practicing law but his abrasive, no - nonsense, non toleration of fools, and frank manner did not win him to many clients. Thus he drifted into politics and journalism. Smuts had been impressed with the English system of jurisprudence and general fairness from earlier times. This had been illustrated in his choice of oversea University in the pursuit of his scholarship.

      SMUTS AND RHODES

At that time Cape was under British sovereignty although the four provinces in Southern Africa were self governing. Two were dominated by the English and were more “liberal” and the other two were the Boer Republics of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. As a citizen of the more liberal Cape he very soon threw in his lot with Cecil John Rhodes the British Imperialist who was an outspoken activist for a united South Africa - i. e. the English and the Boers. This won Smuts few friends amongst the Afrikaners of the Boer Republics. His relationship with Rhodes ended when the latter attempted to invade the Boer Republic of the Transvaal. Disillusioned and betrayed he moved to the Transvaal where he was about to play a dominant role.

SMUTS THE BOER.

At the age of twenty - seven  Smuts was promoted by the fundamentalist Boer patriarch, the President of Transvaal, Paul Kruger in the key role as Minister of Justice. In no time Smuts wrote legislation that allowed Kruger to do exactly as he pleased, including prosecuting  Rhodes's allies that had attempted to oust Kruger. (While the ostensible aim of the coup was the Englishman’s rights in the Transvaal the real objectives were gold and British Imperialism). This incursion was interpreted as an act of war by the Transvaal.

In the aftermath of what became known as The Jameson Raid, it became obvious that no peace could be brokered between the two factions, so Smuts skillfully set the British a mandate that they could not fulfill and that would lead to war against an unprepared Britain, (1898). Smuts and a group of Boer Generals reeked havoc on the British in the early days of the war. The failure of the Boers to achieve an early victory allowed the British to regroup and send in large scale troop deployments.  This failure was as a result of the timidity of the otherwise wily Boer Generals and their inability to capitalize on their advantage. They indulged in endless futile sieges of towns and declined to invade the Cape. De la Rey, a highly respected Boer General, cautioned restraint  - “When God gives a finger do not take a hand”. The upshot of this all was the initial dominance was frittered away and the Boers were left to resort to gorilla warfare.

     PEACE TREATY BETWEEN THE BOERS AND BRITISH

Largely as an outcome of the Boer tactic of guerrilla warfare it became obvious that no side could decisively win. General Kitchener, the then Head of British forces, selected Smuts to negotiate a truce and peace talks. He convinced Smuts on the basis that Campbell - Bannerman, the liberal politician, would soon take over British politics and would offer them everything they were fighting for. 

Persuading Smuts was the easy part as his inherent trust in British fair play must have contributed plenty. The chief obstacle to this solution was the majority of Boer Generals who wanted absolutely no truck with their enemy. Smuts mercilessly cajoled the doubters, with the help of highly respected ally Louis Botha who was to be his protecsia for many years to come. He mislead several of the Boer Generals who agreed to lay down arms only on condition that they would take their country back when the British were weakened or had their backs turned.

So the Peace of Vereeniging was signed in 1902  on very liberal terms for the losers. South Africa was still divided into four provinces all now under British rule. The Afrikaners in the Transvaal with Botha and Smuts at their lead formed a party “Het Volk”. The latter’s main platform was to win back independence with Botha as the leader and Smuts, his all powerful deputy.

So in the real politik of South Africa those that were not white were not a factor other than the fact the Afrikaner held the fear that the English would join with the other races so as to permanently dominate them, (Afrikaners). The British for their part were relatively more liberal but were at best “paternalistic” - a position that they held everywhere till the post war breakdown of their Empire.

THE FOUNDING OF THE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA.

Fulfilling Smuts’s faith in the British they delivered Independence to the four Provinces. This was within a few years of the Boer War that ended in 1902. As Kitchener prophesied Campbell - Bannerman, who was elected in 1906, delivered. 

The problem now was welding these four disparate provinces into a single country. Here Smuts was, once again at his negotiating best. The Cape already had a qualified franchise for the Colored and African population and their premier wanted rights for all in the Union. There was no way that the Boer Republics would buy this. Each Province wanted control. Smuts saw to it that Transvaal obtained the administrative capitol, the Cape the legislative capitol and the Orange Free State, the Judicial. Natal got monetary compensation. Each province retained control over their franchises, education, roads, health and other local activities.

The “native” question was not left totally in the Union’s hands. As a compromise English and Dutch, (to become Afrikaans), became the official languages. All in all the formation of the Union was yet another tour de force orchestrated by the wily Smuts. Botha became its first Prime Minister and Smuts held the power. 

The Boers that opposed him were angered at his autocratic style and the fact that the English were still in dominance. But it hung together till the dawning of the first world war and Smuts’s unyielding attitude to the white mine workers. The latter behavior precipitated the formation of the National Party, the forerunner of the party that was ultimately going to introduce apartheid.

THE FIRST WORLD WAR.

Just one note on the issue of race it was impinging only slightly on the white political scene as the disunity of the whites held center stage. South Africa was the theatre that Mohandas Ghandi premiered his passive resistance philosophy. He acted in support of the rights of the many of Indian descent that worked in the sugar fields of Natal. It is obvious that Smuts empathized with Gandhi and the two had nothing but respect for each other. When Ghandhi left South Africa in 1914 he presented Smuts with a pair of handmade slippers. Many years later Smuts returned them and in a rare moment of humility confessed that he could not be in the shoes of such a great man.

     BOER GENERAL REBELLION PUT DOWN BY SMUTS

But that was by the by. The First World War was to cement the split between the Botha and Smuts and English axis and the purist Afrikaners. The Boer Generals came to Smuts and said the English were distracted in a war and it was now time to take back the country. Smuts reneged and told them they had the independence they had fought for and not only was he not going to fight the English he was going to fight for them. This lead to rebellion with some of the Boer heroes being killed in the process.

      SMUTS THE IMPERIALIST

Smuts captured South West Africa and East Africa from the Germans. His military expertise, according to experts, was grossly exaggerated but he became all the rage in Europe. This former enemy was made a member of the British War Cabinet whose opinion was avidly sought. Whatever was tricky was given to Smuts to work on both military and internal. There was a Welsh Miners’ Coal Strike that was hampering the war effort - they sent Smuts and he persuaded them to return to the mines. Also when Churchill had his Gallipoli catastrophe it was Smuts whose support saved him from utter humiliation and a lifelong friendship was forged.

PEACE OF VERSAILLES, THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, PHILOSOPHER AND ONWARD UP TO THE SECOND WORLD WAR ON THE WORLD STAGE.

Smuts was one of the participants of two post World War 1 historic events. Both he and Botha played important roles at the Peace of Versailles. South Africa was granted the mandate over South West Africa. The League of Nations was really Smuts's idea although ownership is given to Woodrow Wilson with whom he formed a close alliance. The Peace of Versailles dragged on as the allies attempted to exact every drop of blood out of the vanquished. Smuts warned that if the allies stuck to their guns there would be a war in Europe within a few decades. Smuts was now very much part of the world scene. He was a key member of the then most important club in the world, the British Commonwealth.

In 1920 at a Imperial Conference he called for Dominion Status for Ireland, similar to that of South Africa.This after he was called into to broker a peace between the waring British and Ireland.  He was a sort after guest speaker and honoree, anywhere and everywhere in the world where he spoke broadly of the concept of freedom.  Back at home the Afrikaner opposition sneered at him calling him, "The handyman of the British Empire".

In 1926 he published a book entitled Holism and Evolution.  This was the first time this time the word was coined and it represented the new paradigm. A new way of looking at the world. The world had always been defined in reductionist Cartesian terms and Smuts opined that the whole was greater than the sum of its parts. Smuts saw this evolution as part of the way he saw the world. There needed to be integrated bodies such as the League of Nations.This was a philosophical interpretation of Einstonian physics and Einstein acknowledged this in a letter to Smuts in 1936. Einstein stated that besides his own theories Holism and Evolution had influenced him more than anything else. This concept was being echoed in every discipline from anthropology to philosophy but it was Smuts who first used the term “Holism”. 

He also was a fervent supporter of Zionism and corresponded with Weizmann, who was to become the first President on Israel, giving him his full support. 

Smuts too was a botanist of international repute. He relaxed by climbing up Table Mountain in the Cape.

IN SOUTH AFRICA  BETWEEN THE WORLD WARS.

Louis Botha was to die in 1919 and Smuts was to take over the Premiership. A position he held until 1925 when he was surprisingly beaten by the Nationalist Party under Herzog. The irony was that the Nationalist Party had made a pact with the socialistic Labor Party that was predominantly English speaking in order to defeat Smuts.  Meanwhile Black rights were getting nowhere fast - not that were not trying, they were just being fobbed off. Herzog was to suffer defeat in the early 1930’s for economic reasons. He  refused to go off the gold standard. Smuts saw this as a chance to once again unify the whites and formed the United Party giving Herzog the Premiership. The latter compromised on remaining within the British Commonwealth and Smuts gave in on “Native Policy”. In 1936 the Africans were taken of the common roll in the Cape in favor of three white representatives, who as it so happens effectively pleaded their cause for decades to come.

So Smuts once again compromised black aspiration for white unity.

This was all to come unstuck with the advent of the second world war. Once again the issue arose as to whether Britain’s war was South Africa’s. Smuts had no doubt. Herzog wanted to remain neutral. There were a group, who were to become the purified National Party, that either overtly or covertly supported the Nazis. Smuts won the day and once again assumed the premiership. This time he made as his deputy the leader of the liberal faction of the United Party, Jan Hofmeyer. The latter had an intellect that matched Smuts and while not officially acknowledged, was to assume the mantle of progressiveness. He was the strongest advocate for black rights in white politics and finally this important area was being addressed at the highest level. On the ground the Communist Party attracted much support for their all embracing support of equality and championing the black cause.

THE SECOND WORLD WAR AND AFTER.

Once again Smuts was to be thrust on the world stage. Militarily he was now a Field Marshall. He was a confidant of Churchill who consulted him often. Jay H. Ell was a personal friend of Smuts's Chief of Staff, the late David Graaff. The latter related to him a story where Churchill had summoned Smuts to Cairo. The issue was said to be so delicate that Churchill would only discuss it in person with Smuts. Graaff felt it related to Field Marshall Montgomery who had replaced Auchinlek as Commander of the Eighth Army. Apparently, Churchill had expressed reservations about Montgomery as popular as he was with the troops. Graaff’s recollections were that Churchill agreed with Smuts’s counsel and Montgomery was retained. 

It was common knowledge that it had been discussed, with Churchill’s acquiescence, as early as 1940 in inner political and Royal circles that should some ill come to Churchill that Smuts should assume the leadership of the war struggle on behalf of the United Kingdom and the allies. Even talk of such an eventuality illustrated the esteem Smuts was held in. This would have made him leader of the free world - Roosevelt was still very much on the sidelines.

Immediately after the war Smuts drafted the preamble to the United Nations Charter becoming the only signatory to both the League of Nations and UNO and also the only signatory to both World War Peace accords.

MEANWHILE BACK IN SOUTH AFRICA

Smuts realized he could no longer put black rights on the back burner and in 1946 appointed the Fagin commission to examine the future of blacks in urban areas. He also faced a hammering at the UNO about Indian rights in South Africa and was acutely sensitive to the disparity between his world persona and the South African reality.

He now felt omnipotent both at home and in the world. He had hands down won an election in 1944 and appeared unchallengable. The whole royal family were to visit South Africa for an extended visit in 1947 clearly out of deference to him. He supported the findings of the Fagin report that would grant urban black workers rights of domicile with their families. This would obviously have to lead to political rights. The Fagin report created a massive reaction among the purified National Party. Their worst fears were about to be realized. The English and the Smuts Afrikaners were going to gang up with the Blacks against them and the true Afrikaner would never gain the ascendancy. Also looming ahead was massive English and European Immigration to South Africa that once and for all would settle the deal. They stirred up nationalistic resentment to what appeared to be the future. They injected the crudest racist barbs into the campaign.

The Nationalist propaganda was gaining support among the electorate. Smuts was approached by two of his younger but influential caucus members, Harry Lawrence and Hamilton Russell who told him that things were not going as well as he might think.  Zac de Beer, a subsequent leader of the Progressive Party told Jay H. Ell that the latter pleaded with Smuts to redelimit the seats of parliament. Certain urban Smuts strongholds had four times as many votes as rural ones and he needed to correct the imbalance. Smuts was unmoved. He told them they need not worry while he was still around. They could see to that type of thing once he had gone.

Smuts’s party lost the election by a few seats having easily gained the plurality of votes. He had one more chance to retain power. The purified National Party did not have a clear majority of seats and the balance of power was held by a small middle of the road group called the Afrikaner party. Their leader wanted a coalition with Smuts. In return he wanted to be named the Deputy Prime Minister. Smuts refused this lifeline as there was no way he would deal with Mr. Havenga as the latter had voted against going to war with Germany.

The rest is sadly history. There was no delimitation or immigration from the United Kingdom or Europe. The Fagin report was ignored and the black rights that were on the books were whittled away. And with that, all of Smuts’s legacy vanished. Both he and Hofmeyer, his liberal heir apparent, died within a few years of each other. South Africa was to degenerate to the segregation standards of the American Southern States.

Jay H. Ell still believes that the man who nearly prevented apartheid deserves some recognition. Maybe the Cape Town airport could be named after him or does he deserve the oblivion he has been relegated too because of his arrogance at a crucial stage in South Africa’s history. One can hardly condemn a politician for not doing the impossible. As Lyndon Johnson, when President, answered a civil rights activist who enquired how after his opposition to Civil Rights he had become its greatest proponent - “Free at last, free at last - thank God almighty I am free at last". 

The difference between Smuts, the visionary, the statesman, the warrior, the negotiator, the philosopher, the scientist and Lyndon Johnson was the latter never gave up counting votes and finally achieved what he stated were his life long goals - Civil Rights and The War on Poverty. (But then again LBJ too had his problems as his achievements were all but forgotten because of the Vietnam war……).

ANATOMY OF CORRUPTION - CHRISTIE STYLE.

As Jay H. Ell blogged, just a few short days ago, the Christie saga would unravel making him “history" - and it has at a dramatic pace. There are multiple enquiries, investigations and civil lawsuits that have been set into motion.There are substantial allegations that he lied at his Press Conference. The most serious allegation being that he had not spoken to the man who put the lane closure into effect David Wildstein for a long while. Jay H. Ell is sure Christie, “was embarrassed and humiliated” when the The Wall Street Journal published a picture of him conversing with Wildstein on September 11, 2013 at the height of the lane closure. 

Allan Dershowitz believes that he could be charged criminally, for “Willful Negligence”, for any of the deaths or losses resulting from the bridge closure. The two most ominous threats to Christie at the moment are the New Jersey legislative assembly investigation and the investigation of misappropriation of Hurricane relief funds. In the legislative investigation a special counsel, Reid Schar, has been appointed  to lead the evidence. Schar was the lead Federal prosecutor in the conviction of  Illinois Governor Blagojevich and others in corruption leading to heavy sentences. He has represented the Government in several such other cases. Schar has already issued 20 subpoenas showing the breath of the investigation.

Every possible fact is being dug up and issues that were once not even newsworthy at the time are getting the full treatment. In Mark Halperin and John Heilemann’s, otherwise forgettable, book Double Down, the latter maintain that Christie was vetted and rejected by Romney as a possible Vice Presidential choice. Broadly speaking the issues that arose in the vetting process are being vented again. Many wondered why Romney did not choose him as he was immensely popular, he hadn’t hugged Obama yet and was well in with the Conservatives at that stage.

THE ADVERT FEATURING CHRISTIE FAMILY.

The other most threatening investigation is into how he spent $25 million of Federal money, given to Hurricane Sandy victims, for an advertising campaign to promote tourism in New Jersey. The latter featured him and his family in the midst of his gubernatorial election campaign. At the time he was attacked all round including by Tea Party luminary Rand Paul for spending relief money for what amounted to electioneering.

The anatomy of that advert and all that surrounds it is illustrative of the cronyism and corruption in government and is as follows:

Ostensibly bids were asked for a TV ad to promote tourism. Two firms in the running were, MWW and Sigma. The Sigma’s bid was $2.0 million less than MWW. MWW liberally featured the Christie family and Sigma didn’t. Sigma were asked during the pitch process if they would feature the Christie family in their ads and they gave a non committal response. MWW were awarded the contract. MWW are also big donors to the Republican Party.

The selection committee were all Christie appointees and was headed by a Michele Brown. The latter worked for Christie when he was a US Attorney for the State of New Jersey in the Federal Government and was involved in a scandal that led her to resign. Christie lent her $47,000 without reporting it and paying tax on the interest. She conveniently resigned taking pressure off the whole issue. She was also accused by then Governor Corzine, who Christie was to defeat in his first election as Governor of New Jersey, in not responding to his Freedom of Information Requests on Christie.

A reporter for a New Jersey public T. V. station questioned Christie on his loan to Brown. Christie first had a discussion with him and asked if he was really going to go ahead with the interview. He replied in the positive and asked some hard questions. That public T. V. station was closed down by Christie with a loss of a 150 jobs.

Michele Brown’s official title in the New Jersey Administration is Chief Executive of the State’s Economic Development Authority. This is an area that she had had no previous known experience as she was a lawyer both for the government and private practice prior to the appointment. Her salary is $225,000 per year.

Christie himself as the US Attorney was involved in plenty of other controversy. He was investigated for gross business overspenditure that was detailed in the Inspector General’s report. Fourteen of the fifteen instances  investigated showed that he his expenditures were way over the limit allowed.  But more materially he gave massive no compete contracts to cronies.  One of these was to his boss John Ashcroft's firm of $28 - 52 million. Another questioned multimillion contract was to a former Federal Prosecutor, David Kelley, who elected not to prosecute his brother Todd for certain alleged criminal activities. He awarded a contract a $10 million to former mentor Herbert Stern who was one of his biggest donors in his gubernatorial campaigns, Then there was a deferred prosecution of Bristol Myers on condition they gave $5 million for a Chair at his alma mater’s law school. There were other decisions he made and all this led to changes in Justice Department rules and legislative hearings.

So there is layer upon layer of corruption and cronyism, it would appear on anything and everything. One wonders what a skilled prosecutor will uncover in an all embracing investigation. What was originally an investigation by the New Jersey Transportation Committee has become an investigation into his office and abuse of power.

UPSHOT

Christie’s poll numbers in New Jersey have dropped. But surprisingly only 51% don’t believe he was telling the whole truth at his Press Conference. His personal impression ratings from a year ago have dropped from 70% to 44%. The good news for him was that his job approval rating has only dropped 6% over this crisis - which doesn’t say much for the expectations of New Jerseyians! The really bad news is that he has dropped 13 points behind Hillary in the National Polls for the 2016 Presidential election. 

Christie and all his top administration officials have appointed personal lawyers which means that they recognize the seriousness of the situation. Christie has made it quite clear that he will only co operate with “appropriate” investigations. Thus far Christie has intimated that his lawyer would  assist in the local US State’s Attorney’s office investigation which has got to be the least of his problems. Several of Christie’s administration come from the current State Attorney's office. (It never ends does it).Christie’s personal lawyer is a hot shot litigator, Randy Mastro. also a former federal prosecutor.

But the cruelest blow to Christie has to be that his boyhood hero Bruce Springsteen, also known as “The Boss”, joined what has become the nightly feature of late night comedian - satirical shows, lampooning Christie. Christie has apparently watched Springsteen in over a 100 live concerts. After years of trying to meet Springsteen in person the latter finally agreed after Hurricane Sandy. Springsteen ended his song, “Someday Governor I don’t know when this will all end/ but till then you are killing the working man whose stuck in Chris Christie’s Fort Lee New Jersey traffic jam".

And there are still the majority of pundits saying that this will not ultimately affect him if they cannot prove that he knew or initiated this punitive act.

The really sad reality is that had this bridge had been in Nevada and the Governor wouldn’t have been a Presidential candidate who would have given a damn?

CHRISTIE'S BRIDGE - WATERGATE FAST FORWARDED

Events are moving so fast in the Bridgegate scandal that it reminds Jay H. Ell of Watergate fast forwarded. The latter took place in a world that did not have 24/7 television channels and a world connected to the internet, recording in live time, a blow by blow commentary of the scandal. Watergate took literally years to unravel. Bridgegate has only being going for months. For the uninitiated the hullabaloo relates to closing two of three lanes of the George Washington Bridge, the busiest traffic bridge in the USA, between the States of New Jersey and New York causing traffic delays of four hours as well as untold medical and personal havoc.

The supposed motive for this bridge closure was political retribution of the Democratic Mayor of Fort Lee, Mark Sokolich who failed to endorse Chris Christie for Governor of New Jersey. The issue that has ensued has enveloped the charismatic Governor of New Jersey, Republican Presidential front runner, Chris Christie, who was described by Time as the savior of the Republican Party. It also involves the whole issue of governmental corruption where a public facility was used for political purposes. Jay H. Ell believes the enormity of the scandal hasn’t sunk in. It took years before Nixon’s inner circle resigned it has taken a few months to see the back of four of Christie’s inner circle with question marks hanging over him and the others.

For Chris Christie it is crunch time as his whole persona and credibility and therefore his political career is on the line. Looming in the future, as was with Nixon, is also possible legal implications. If it was John Dean that ultimately lead to Nixon’s downfall it could be a David Wildstein,  former Head of New Jersey’s Port Authority and therefore the bridge manager. He has provided the New Jersey State Legislature with a ton of documents that have made it quite clear that the Bridge closing was, at best, a conspiracy launched by the closest of Christie insiders.  Christie’s defense at this time is “plausible deniability”.  

 Another of the many issues the Governor still has to address is his non action for months while accusations were flying against his administration, even laughing the accusations off. In addition Christie’s whole narrative is at stake. The no - nonsense straight as a die, non bully administrator who supposedly had a positive working relationship with the Democrats image, is being seriously challenged. 

THE TIMELINE. 

“ Your personnel is your policy” - Rick Santorum, former Republican Presidential hopeful, on commenting on the scandal.

This is the timeline narrative, that is derived directly from the e - mails presented by former Head of the New Jersey Port Authority when responding to a subpoena to produce all the documents relating to the Port Washington Bridge closure and statements made by Governor Christie at his January 9, 2014 press conference.

On August 5, 2013 Governor Chris Christie met with his appointee, the Chairman of the Bridge Agency in New Jersey, Dave Simpson. The agenda was not included, thus far, in the subpoenaed documents.

On August 13, Bridget Anne Kelly Christie's deputy Chief of Staff, who up to two days prior to being fired, was at Christie’s side at a gubernatorial event, sent an e mail to David Wildstein, the Head of the New Jersey Port Authority. It had one sentence, “It is time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee”.  Within one minute Wildstein, a Christie appointee and inner circle player since way back, having gone to school with Christie, replied " got it”. Implicit in these two cryptic E- Mails is at least Kelly and Wildstein are in on a conspiracy to create havoc in Fort Lee. 

Wildstein could not have “got it” in one minute unless there had been previous communication at least between the two that the time had come to put a plan into effect. If only these two are involved then Ms. Kelly must be one powerful lady to set into motion an action that was illegal and could jeopardize her powerful  boss’s career. She would have to exude power to just give Wildstein an order which without a moment’s hesitation he would carry out. There are further e mails between these two key conspirators and on September 7, Wildstein states that he will let her know how “Fort Lee” goes.

The question then arises is there any evidence whatsoever that Kelly has this type of power in the Christie administration to order such a “dirty trick”. And then that this would be such common knowledge in Christie’s stable that Wildstein would be aware of it. On the contrary everyone has described Kelly as a loyal bureaucratic functionary. So there has to be an irresistible inference that at least some other members of the Christie inner circle are behind this.

On September 9 Wildstein and the Deputy Director of the New Jersey Port Authority Bill Baroni, another Christie appointee and school colleague initiate the closure of two lanes of the busiest bridge in the USA. (There is now at least one other conspirator, Baroni).

Within a day there are official complaints that the bridge closures could cause serious health and other problems, including a report by a Tina Lado, a Port Authority Official, that police had difficulty responding to a cardiac arrest and a missing child. 

On September 12 the Democratic Mayor of Fort Lee, Mark Sokolich, writes to Bill Baroni that the closures are “punitive”. (Sokolich did not endorse Christie for the up coming November gubernatorial election).

On September 13 Patrick Foye, Head of the New York Port Authority that has jurisdiction over the New York section of the Bridge writes that that the lane closures were “abusive” and had had potentially dire consequences. This correspondence went to Governor Christie’s Office. Besides others that may have seen it Regina Egea received it. She has been nominated as Christie’s next Chief of Staff as his present one, Kevin O’Dowd, has been nominated by Christie to be the Chief Law Officer of New Jersey- attorney general.

On September 16 the New Jersey Port Authorities issued a statement saying the lines were closed for a “traffic study”.

On or about September 18 there are a series of E-Mails between Wildstein and a Bill Stepien. The latter was Christie’s campaign manager in both his successful campaigns and had been nominated by Christie to be both the Chairman of the Republican Party in New Jersey and the consultant to the Republican Governor’s Committee, which he was the newly appointed Chairman of. The e- mails contained jocular comments about the lane closures and derogatory statements about the Democratic Mayor of Fort Lee, Mark Sokolich. This brings the number of conspirators to this action to at least four of Christie’s closest insiders. 

Between mid - September and mid - November there are repeated enquiries about the lane closures. These moves are generally ignored, denied or “internal” investigations instituted.

On November 5 Republican Chris Christie is reelected Governor in a strongly Democratic State with an overwhelming vote and propelling him further as the leading Republican candidate for the Presidential Race. Already, in the polls he was the only possible Republican that can give Hillary a run. 

On November 13, a Christie spokesperson stated that the Governor does not involve himself in traffic situations.

On November 16, another of Christie’s inner circle, spokesperson Michael Drewniak, stated that the reason for the lane closure was a “traffic study”.

On December 2, in a press conference Christie joked about the closure and stuck to the traffic survey causation.

On December 4, Christie insider, Michael Drewniak meets with Wildstein.

On December 6, Wildstein resigns his position and thanks Drewniak for his “sound advice”.

On or about December 8 Christie ordered Kevin O’ Dowd, his Chief of Staff to investigate to “see if anyone was involved”. According to Christie they all lied to O’Dowd.

On December 20, Fort Lee Mayor Sokolich angrily responds to Christie’s assertion, that no -one had informed his office of the problems. (This is at least a week after Christie ordered the O’Dowd enquiry)

On January 8, 2014 Wildstein’s e mails become public.

On January 9, Christie held his Press Conference where he stated he was “humiliated and embarrassed” by the events. He categorically denied knowledge and or participation in the bridge incident. This was not vintage aggro Christie. He repeated again and again that this was his responsibility. 

He stated that he has soul searched “What I did wrong to have these folks think it was OK to lie to me?. (Interesting to note that the soul searching was not about what he had done wrong to create a culture of corruption). He also announced the termination of his Deputy Chief of Staff Bridgett Kelly and axed his campaign manger Bill Stepien from the future leadership of the New Jersey Republican Party and Consultant to the Republican Governors' National Committee.

On January 9, David Wildstein, the former Director of the New Jersey Port Authority appeared at a Transportation Committee of the New Jersey enquiry and refused to answer any questions on the e- mails he had submitted to the Committee.  Many of these had redacted  sentences. His lawyer told the Committee that if they obtained his client immunity for prosecution from the States of New Jersey and New York and the Federal Government then he would provide them with answers.

On January 9, Fort Lee’s Mayor Sokolich stated that the most important result of his meeting with Christie is that the latter reassured him that this would never happen again.

CHRISTIE THE BULLY, THE  BIPARTISAN POLITICIAN AND NARCISSIST

While Christie maintained that he was not a bully, the immediate response from Senior Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, to this crises was, "This reinforces the narrative that he is a kind of a bully.” Deborah Wassermann Chairperson of the Democratic Party was more vocal. She stated that when  people oppose him he exacts political retribution." When people question him he derides them and snidely jokes. And when anyone dares to look into his administration he  bullies and attacks". On Television and the internet there have been tens of clips of Christie humiliating, questioners, opponents and media people. 

Fort Lee’s Mayor, Sokolich, while keeping his cards close to the chest agrees. In his September 16 letter, see above, he says the action is “punitive”. Also his statement on January 9 following his meeting with Christie implies he believed that Christie had the power to see that this never happened again.

Ever since this issue there is a line of Democratic mayors lining up to report Christie bullying and victimization. After refusing to endorse Christie for Governor the Hoboken Mayor received 1% of her grant requests for her town. New Jersey City Mayor states that after his refusal to support Christie’s run Christie would not meet him canceling appointment after appointment. The town Elizabeth’s Mayor said that when local legislators refused to support Christie legislation he impacted the local economy by shutting down the Division of Motor Vehicles in their town. Conversely the Democratic Mayor of Springfield, an endorser of Christie, received a grant from the New Jersey Washington Port authority out of the blue!

Christie is beginning to look more and more like an enforcer who instituted a reign of terror on his opponents rather than a bipartisan politician. To show the frame of reference Christie was functioning in, he seriously believed that the Democratic legislature would automatically endorse his appointment of O’Dowd his current Chief of Staff, on January 14, as attorney general. O' Dowd would then be the chief judicial officer of New Jersey, overseeing the legitimacy of Bridgegate. This is not going to happen. 

Christie is in for another disappointment as the new Democratic Speaker of the Assembly is going to extend the subpoena power of the investigating committee beyond January 14. This had been previously in doubt. Speaker - elect Vincent Prieto has now stated that there are too many questions unanswered about this threat to public safety and abuse of power. To show the extent of distrust that has now manifested that there is talk even of impeachment by Congressmen Wisniewski who is conducting the probe. 

While Christie’s performance was masterful at the Press conference on January 8 and political theater at its best, he failed to address why he did not ask any of his inner circle what was going on at Fort Lee as all hell was breaking lose over a period of three months. It strains credulity that a trained prosecutor in effect gave all his staffers one hour to tell all and bought that they knew nothing of what was going on.  His office as early September 13 had been told by the head of the New York Port authority that the lane closures were “abusive” and had had potentially dire consequences.

Further at the press conference it was all about him and not about the millions he had inconvenienced. Jay H. Ell lost count of the times he said “I am”. He was disappointed, he was let down, he was the victim of it all. "What was in it in him that he gave the impression that it was ok to lie to him".  He fired Kelly not because of her abusive behavior but because she lied to him.  This press conference follows his narcissistic keynote address to the Republican Presidential Nomination Convention where he had the gall to speak about himself and not Romney. E. J. Robinson of the Washington Post labelled his egocentricism at the Press Conference as staggering.

Christie is not yet of the hook for personal involvement in this saga. This is only the beginning and he is already playing heavy defense.

MOTIVE:

For anyone who knows the dynamics of bullies and enforcers there is already motive enough for “teaching Sokolich a lesson” for all to see. However, there appears to be a possible additional motive that would answer the question as to why “the lesson” was delivered to Sokolich in Fort Lee. As Christie keeps saying he had never even met Sokolich and would not even have recognized him in a line - up. So why on earth would he want to go for him?

For the followers of this saga they may have also noted that Sokolich kept mentioning, in interviews, a billion dollar project for the town. That project is near the Port Washington Bridge and a big business advantage was that it had near access to the three access lanes for easy transit to New York. The moment those lanes were shut the backers nearly pulled out. This would explain why Sokolich’s priority would be to be reassured by Christie that this could never happen again. 

The story that this Project may have played a key role in this episode was revealed by Brian Murphy on Steve Kornacki’s MSNBC show. It is interesting to note that both Murphy and Kornacki, as reported by the online newspaper Business Insider, worked for the same Wildstein, the Head of the New Jersey Port Authority, when he ran a New Jersey political website. 

Timeline for new motive:

In the September 12th letter, see above, that Sokolich sent to Boroni, the deputy head of the Port Authority, it is now learned that in addition to objections to the lane shutting he wanted to know what is going to happen to his billion dollar project.

On a date unknown Boroni publicly questions the need for a small town to have three access lanes.

In Christie’s December 2, press conference, besides laughing the whole matter off, states, “Why does Fort Lee need 3 access lanes?”

CHRISTIE IS HISTORY

Christie is a high high profile politician and is the Republican’s establishment’s only realistic hope of defeating Hillary. He is backed by Fox to the hilt. To - date the only support that he really has got other than the Republican media is from the administrative Republican hierarchy, most of whom have defended him by attacking Obama and Hillary. Not even have the New Jersey Republican legislators been vocal in support. The Tea Party candidate Ron Paul did not even bother to hide his glee. Christie is in deep trouble. Not the least of his trouble that the so called “bipartisanship” is history. The Democrats in New Jersey are no longer frightened of him.  

The general consensus of all the pundits in all the media is that if they cannot actually prove that he was directly involved he will survive. Jay H Ell believes, with all that has happened and all there must be to come, he is history. 

2014 AGENDAS: INCOME INEQUALITY = OBAMA and OBAMACARE = GOP

AGENDAS

Obama has moved the agenda to where he wants it - The War on Poverty.  Just like Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, he is moving income inequality to center stage. The issues he is initially focusing are the minimum wage and unemployment benefits. These are pretty basic policies - even George W. Bush extended unemployment benefits when needed.

However, with the uncompromising Republicans these basic issues are revolutionary.  Even better for Obama is the agenda the Republicans have chosen. The GOP has a problem because it needs to camouflage the open battle between its two wings and so once again Obamacare attack is front and center and in addition they are falling back on the old Republican standby - the culture wars of abortion, contraception and LBGT rights.

The very same day that Obama announced his income inequality priorities, the Chairman of The Republican Party National Committee, Reince Priebus, announced that he was postponing the National Republican Party meeting so that members could participate in the "March For Life" in Washington. This is an annual gathering, that has increasingly become more and more of a non event, to protest the Supreme Court 1973 Roe versus Wade decision on abortion.

However, the protest has now been extended to include contraception and Obamacare is being attacked in that it is forcing employers, against their religious convictions, to provide contraception in their insurance plans. Reince Priebus underlined the GOP 2014 position, at a press conference, on the Republican Agenda, “Promising to pound away at the Democrats and Obamacare”.

 ON A CLEAR DAY ATTACK OBAMACARE FOR EVER

So ideally, the Republicans want to run on a failing Obamacare and in tune with this narrative the response of the chief Republican unelected megalomaniac Karl Rove was that Obama doesn’t give a hoot about poverty and he is using it to take away attention from Obamacare.

The Republicans are connecting the culture wars with Obamacare. They now say that Obamacare attacks religion by insisting that employers provide contraception in their health care plans. While there was a provision in the Act to exclude churches, certain religious entities have been deemed as employers and technically should provide contraception. Any rate the Supreme Court is going to decide whether or not employers, in general, who do not believe in contraception need include this in their plans.

This GOP approach immediately moves the issue into Women Rights. Polling shows that 99% of women who have been sexually active have used contraception. Jay H. Ell does not know what Rance and these guys are thinking. Why on earth would they want to focus attention on this issue confirming the Democratic smear that they don’t give a hoot about women’s rights? Insurance can cover Viagra but not the pill. Meanwhile Obama has just appointed the first female head of the Federal Reserve ever.

The Congress Republican majority have made it quite clear that the are going to carry on doing nothing other than attack Obamacare. (Immigration reform might be an exception but Jay H. Ell would not bet on it). Eric Cantor, the Chief House Republican whip, in order to keep the Obamacare fire burning has now brought up the fear of breaches of privacy in Obamacare. He has also sent a memorandum out to  the districts, where he perceives that the Democrats are vulnerable, on how to attack those who have supported Obamacare. Cantor is even more specific telling the believers to attack, “Saying you were lied too that you could keep our own doctors”. 

THE ISSUES IMPORTANT TO ELECTORATE  

So on the face of it the country is so polarized that nothing can get done. However, it is not really. E. J. Dionne, of the Washington Post, writes that there is a majority consensus around the ideas of “economic justice” and a safety net for citizens but it is obscured by the fact that a minority of the Republicans hold the Party captive. He omits to say that the latter are controlled by the unelected Conservative institutions and their paymasters. MSNBC ran a story that the Koch Brothers have either directly or indirectly already put $400,000,000 into the fight.

On the issues that are central to this election, the electorate are decidedly against the Republicans.  While the figures on Obamacare are currently in a flux, according to a Gallop poll, the issues that are front and central for the electorate have the following poll numbers, (Democrats numbers first): Compassion and caring for the electorate, 47 : 17;  Minimum wage increase, 63 : 26 and increasing length of unemployment benefits, 63 : 40. Now Obama’s approval rating is 43% but he is running against the Republican Congress that is barely 20%. So there is no basis for the impression that the Country is "so divided". 

The Republicans cannot totally ignore these populist measures so initially they fluctuated between calling those who need unemployment benefits and food stamps and the like - “bums” and that they favor these things, but unless Obama makes spending cuts, (from Obamacare preferably), they will not support them. Needless to say this has not gone too well with the electorate.

REPUBLICAN RESPONSE = OBAMACARE 

As Jay H. Ell has explained in previous blogs the demographics are totally against the Republicans and we are witnessing a last ditch Alamo stand. The fight is gelling down to an economic struggle between those who want distributive economics and those who insist on trickle down economics. Needless to say those with massive resources have all but taken the Republican Party over. With the gerrymandering of the constituencies the Republicans have control of the House of Representatives with far fewer votes. While the split in the Republican Party is in the open they are united against the Democrats. So the policy is simple - do nothing and make the Democrats and Obama look impotent, smear Obama and Hillary off the face of the earth and of course attack Obamacare. Then with voter suppression for the Democrats, bring out the Republican base on cultural issues and hope the voter turn out will be low enough to keep the House and win back the Senate. 

The relative silence on Obamacare specifics by the Republicans seems to indicate that Obamacare is not doing as badly as they hoped.  Over 2 million had been recruited by the end of December not counting the new Medicaid enrollees. The original goal was 7 million recruited by the end of March. While the economic viability of the plan depends on younger, less ill, citizens to enroll, the Democrats are going on the offensive with the “happiness” stories of those enrolled to date. When you realize that 2 million people went bankrupt in 2012 because of health bills  there are lots of “happiness” stories out there.

Any young person would be nuts not to enroll. The cost is relatively low. One attack of appendicitis and he or she could be facing a bill up to $50,000. A fall on the basketball court with a bone fracture that needs an operation even more. So the Republican narrative on the Affordable Care Act is more likely to be general than specific.  There will be the usual jibes at big government, choosing your doctor, the cost and the fact that it is really an attack on religion. 

 Republican Presidential hopefuls have chimed in on the “War against Poverty”. Rand Paul represented both Republican responses to the economic inequalities. Initially, his approach was more in line that the unemployed need to get off their butts and get a job. He then, within 2 weeks, got all empathetic, and said that if benefits were to go beyond 6 weeks, then the money must be made available and cuts must be made by Obama to pay for it. Mark Rubio, the real Latino white hope, basically said that each state must address their unique “poverty” situation.  However, Rubio has no credibility as he lead the compromise on immigration reform and then when this became politically embarrassing he voted against his own legislation. 

 Republicans have used the occasion, on the 50th Anniversary of Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty, to say that he failed. His programs are institutions today in America that no one would dare touch - Medicare the universal healthcare for seniors;  Upgrading Social Security that is keeping a large number of seniors from poverty; Medicaid which is the basis of universal care on the poor; Head Start  the program that gave preschool poor children the opportunity to obtain education and care to close the gap on those more privileged; Nursing home facilities for the elderly - just to mention a few of the 100 legislative programs that Johnson initiated.

Let any Republican even in the most conservative of districts actually run against these programs and see the response. The immediate effect of Johnson’s war was to reduce those in poverty by half. The problem is that ever since Reagan the Republicans have conducted a war against “entitlement” and not evolved the programs further. As Reagan maintained in the war against poverty, poverty won and ever since the Republicans have burrowed away at these programs. 

While the Republican agenda appears moronic what else can they do? They can’t really give a softer image to income inequality as all hell will break loose within the party, even more than there has. So on a clear day they attack Obamacare forever. They have to rely on a low voter turn out and the good old standby cultural issues to bring out the base regardless of economic reality. They then have to hope that their voter suppression tactics keep the minorities and the youth away from the polls. At the moment that seems the mood.

WHAT WILL BE THE OUTCOME?

It is early days yet and three variables that may change the tone of this race are out there:

*In the Primaries, the establishment, having provided the Republicans a clear cut choice, trounce the Tea Party. If they do then the Republicans need not run on their Obamacare loony tunes manifesto. That is pretty unlikely as the Establishment candidates to date have been out to prove how right wing they are as well. So even when the Establishment candidates win they are so compromised that if they try and sound reasonable in the general election they are confronted with endless videos from their primaries. This is what happened to Romney. So this is a long long shot.

*Obamacare crashes or the narrative changes to such an extent that it moves above the 17% of the electorate that currently rate it as a key issue that concerns them, to a percentage that can impact an election.

*Obama himself is smeared of the face of the earth so that he becomes the issue not the Republican Congress .

While the electorate seems not much interested in Obamacare there is a disconnect between the present polling results and the policies the electorate rate as important. There is a major consensus that “economic justice” is supported yet the polling shows that the Senate is in play for the Republicans and they will retain the House. Quite frankly Jay H. Ell cannot believe that the electorate, at the end of the day, will vote in contradistinction to the way they feel on issues. But at the same time he cannot believe that 9 months before an election the polling can mean anything. So watch this space!   

          We are also due to hear Obama spelling out his vision for         attacking  income inequality. But as things stand it is going to have to be a vision as there is no way he is going to get it through Congress. Obama will do what he can with executive orders but he may have to wait for Hillary to get it going.

THE NEW ANTISEMITISM IN EUROPE AND BOYCOTTS OF ISRAELI UNIVERSITIES.

INTRODUCTION: Evolution of anti - semitism.

 It is common cause that anti - semitism has, once again, become an issue in Europe and Scandinavia and is alleged to be the agenda of certain Universities and their representative groups in Western Countries. Certain Muslim countries have been anti - semitic since about the time of the second world war, but the resurgence in the Western world is relatively new and it is growing apace. It is important in the modern day revival of of anti - semitism to look at the definitions of anti semitism before proceeding. The Encyclopedia Britanica’s definition of anti - semitism is, “Hostility or discrimination against Jews as a religious and a racial group”. The online free Fairfax dictionary simply defines it as, "Hostility or prejudice against Jews". Generally speaking prejudice is accepted as  being, an opinion formed beforehand, especially an unfavorable one, based on inadequate facts, reason or actual experience.
The former Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth, Lord Jonathan Sacks stated that anti - semitism has gone through a number of phases. Initially in the Roman era the Jews were just considered different like anyone else who was “different” and discriminated against on that basis. The basis of anti- semitism was thus political.

          RELIGIOUS AND RACIAL ANTI - SEMITISM

Anti - semitism, according to Sacks, very soon became religious. This was as a result of, inter alia, over a millennium and a half years of vilification of Jews as being the personification of the devil and the killers of Christ. There were Saint Augustine, the Crusades and the blood libel against the Jews in the eleventh Century.  Anti - semitism on the basis of religion culminated in the Inquisition and pogroms throughout Europe especially Russia. The mantra, in some  
countries, was if you changed your religion to Christianity then you would no longer be discriminated against. 

Anti -semitism never the less continued on a religious basis but gradually assumed a racial overtone in the nineteenth century, particularly in Germany, where the term anti -semitism was coined. Now regardless of whether you regarded yourself a Jew or not if the authorities deemed you were one you went to the concentration camps. (It is fair to say that the holocaust where six million jews were slaughtered was the major impetus in the carrying out of the Balfour declaration and the establishment of Israel as a nation. That and the fact that no country was really open to accepting the millions of holocaust survivors).

Lord Sacks believes that anti - semitism now takes the form of attacking Israel. The latter assumption has been sharply challenged. This understandably results in the argument that just criticizing Israel’s Government could be considered anti - semitic.

                ISRAEL AS A NATION STATE

 After the UNO establishment of Israel certain Arab countries changed their justification to their opposition to Israel’s existence.  This after several unsuccessful military attempts to wipe the nation off the face of the earth. The narrative was changed to while they had nothing against the Jews it was the Zionists that they hated.This culminated in the 1975 General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism and comparing it to South African apartheid. 

While certain Muslim countries, like Iran, still unashamedly want to wipe Israel of the face of the earth there is a change in the opposition to Israel relating it to their treatment of the Palestinians and the failure of the latter to gain independent nation status.  The criticism of Israeli behavior likens it to the Nazis treatment of the Jews and or to apartheid South Africa. This critique has also found support among certain groups and individuals who had previously not publicly been opposed to Jews or Israel.

EUROPEAN AGENCY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT ON ANTI-SEMITISM

It is in this current mileu that there is open anti - semitism in Europe and Scandinavia on a scale that has lead to an increase of  European immigration or Aliyah to Israel by 26% in the year 2013 as reported by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Human Rights.  In France alone the increase was 49% in 2013 over a nine month period. (International Business Times November 26, 2013). The number of anti semitic incidents in France have skyrocketed by 83% in 2013. These have been ascribed to Muslim extremism.

 The European Union Agency for Fundamental Human Rights released a 80 page report on the perceptions on close to 6,000 self identified jews, regardless of whether these jews regarded themselves as such by cultural, religious, ethnic or Zionistic criteria. The countries surveyed were Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Rumania, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 

The survey was conducted under a rigid protocol and the results did not include Rumania as there were too few responses from that country to make an appropriate assessment of their perceptions. It must be pointed out here or now, in spite of the growing problem of anti - semitism, none of the respective governments condone any of the behavior reported and are taking vigorous steps, including legislation, to curtail it. 

The very fact that the European Union have conducted this investigation is evidence itself of the gravity in which they view this negative trend and in their comments on the survey they are clear in their condemnation and make suggestions to improve the status quo. On the other hand there is a growth of extremism, that even finds representation in European Parliaments, reflecting the mood of the ugly naked anti-Semitism that is mushrooming in Europe.

Results

The essence of the report reflects that one third of the respondents “did not feel safe” living as jews in Europe and were considering immigrating to Israel The feelings were strongest in France, Hungary and Belgium. A total of 76% believed that anti-semitism was on the rise in Europe and 90% maintained that they had met fellow citizens that felt that Jews were not regarded as nationals of their own countries. One third also considered that there were acts of anti- semitism in the media, internet, political life, graffiti, desecration or vandalism of cemeteries or buildings and open expressions of hostility. 

The agency notes that one is generally reliant on the number of incidents of harassment, vandalism or violence towards Jews from  media reports. The survey reflected that 21% had a personal experience of verbal incidents, harassment or physical attack within the previous 12 months. Yet they had only reported about one in 5 to the police or other body in the past 5 years. Half reported serious physical harm or threats or acts of vandalism. 

One of two victims of the aforementioned behavior stated they avoided certain events and areas as a result of this discrimination. These included Jewish events or sites. One of the comments made was “Our religious places are under systematic police surveillance. This shows that the the threats are real and the Government takes them seriously”. An elderly Swedish Jew stated that, “We try to avoid certain areas where we know anti-semitism takes place, e.g. immigrant neighborhoods with a Muslim majority". Almost half of those being surveyed were worried about being harassed or verbally insulted and more than a third feared a physical attack in the next 6 months. 

The situations where discrimination were said to happen were often work related as in 30% of the incidents. Those Jews discriminated against showed a positive attitude to the authorities, such as police, courts, landlords and doctors. As noted above the victims did not believe much good would come out of them reporting the incidents. About half were also not aware of legislation that made this discrimination illegal.

The respondents noted that the following statements were heard either all the time or frequently; Israelis behave like Nazis towards the Palestinians, (48%), Jews have too much power, (38%), Jews exploit holocaust victimhood for their own purposes, (37%) and Jews are responsible for the current economic crisis, (21%). 

The Middle East Arab - Israeli conflict impacted on those surveyed. Over two thirds felt their safety was impaired as a result of this conflict. Anti - Semitism incidents increased markedly for example in 2010 at the time of the GAZA invasion. An Italian respondent commented that, “Anti - semitism due to prejudices against Israel is increasing by identifying Jewish people with what is going on in Israel. This is more dangerous than the traditional extreme right wing anti - semitism, because it is less visible but more deceitful and pervasive.” 

An interesting perception related to who those surveyed as to who were the perpetrators of  harassment, violence or discrimination in the past 5 years - 50% said Muslim Extremists,  40% with extreme right wing views and over 50% with extreme left wing views. Obviosly some respondents named more than one group 

Comment:

The European agency report gives some numeric perspective to a situation where previously one had relied on anecdotal reports of anti - semitism. In Nazi Germany, where race was used as a criterion for anti - semitism the perpetrator decided who he would make the victim, regardless of whether she was a Jew who had converted, was irreligious and totally assimilated. Similarly in Europe today no Jew is asked his or her opinion on the Israeli - Palestinian - Arab conflict, it is assumed that he supports the action.  

This data would be supportive of Rabbi Sack’s contention that modern day anti - semitism takes the form of being anti - Israel or as a result of Israel's existence.

ACADEMIC BOYCOTT OF ISRAEL. 

 A hotly debated issue at the moment is whether the proposed academic boycott of Israel reflects the world wide reawakening of anti -semitism as manifested in Europe or is just a legitimate political action to attempt to change Israel’s policy towards the Palestinian territories. The boycott supporters have also likened Israel’s action to those of the Nazis and or apartheid South Africa. 

One of the problems in this debate is that some protagonists of Israel maintain that any criticism of Israel is anti - semitic. Jon Stewart of The Daily Show viewed some rabid attacks on Netanyahu in the Knesset and opined apparently it is only not anti - semitic if you disagree with Israeli Government’s position in Israel. (Jay. H. Ell, in the interests of disclosure, has often blogged attacking Netanyahu’s policies on the Palestine issue and obviously does not believe his position is anti - semitic). Obviously criticism of Israeli policies does not equate to anti - semitism as otherwise half the Israelis themselves would be classified as anti - semites. 

The issue is thus whether the boycott of Israeli Academics is legitimate political expression because the behavior of the Israelis is equivalent, as is argued, to the Nazis and apartheid South Africa and/or is so egregious so as to single it out.


The Academic Boycott was mooted in Ramallah in 2004 by Palestinian academics who stated that Israeli cultural and educational institutions should be boycotted unless they could prove that they were not complicit in maintaining Israel’s occupation of Palestine. The boycott was extended to Israeli academics as well. The attempts to effect this boycott has had a very bumpy road but this does not decide whether or not the boycott movements are anti - semitic or merely exerting legitimate political pressure. The boycott has found supporters in South Africa, Australia, Canada and some European Institutions but has had its main areas of action in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. (To fully discuss the efforts and the responses of this campaign would take another blog and is not really pertinent to this discussion).

             THE PALESTINIANS

Firstly, one has to recognize that there are three groups of Palestinians in the area - 1.5 million in Israel itself, 3.0 million in Jordan and 4.5 million in the Occupied Territories. 

If the standards are equal rights in all those areas, Jordan fails miserably. The Palestinians represent over half the population in Jordan and have no rights or franchise in that country. The Palestinians represent a sizable minority in Israel of 20% of the population. They enjoy the same rights as every Israeli citizen, have members of the Knesset, been appointed as judges and other high positions and some serve in the Israeli Defense Force. It is also interesting to note that no Palestinian freedom fighter/ terrorist whether having killed Israelis or not, has ever been executed. The question immediately arises as to if Palestinians are the issue why aren't Jordan's academics boycotted as well?

The Occupied Territories are "self governing" however they are completely dependent economically and movement on the Israelis. The creation of a physical wall around the territories has limited movement even more but the Israelis defend their decision in saying that suicide bombings in Israel have virtually stopped as a result. Also there are stringent check points where confrontation often takes place and Palestinians are restricted in their movements.

ISRAEL AND PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES ARE AT WAR 

It is fair to say that Israel and the Palestinian Territories are in a war like state and it is in this frame of reference that the atrocities have to be evaluated. Hamas conducts raids, attacks settlements, sends suicide bombers and fires rockets into Israel and neither Hamas or Abbas have recognized the right of Israel to exist. Innocents die and there is not a family in Israel that has not lost a close relative either in one of the wars or in a terrorist attack.

The Israeli reprisal raids, for example and their bulldozing of homes and institutions has raised criticism both in and without Israel. Jay H. Ell has read heart rending accounts by Israeli soldiers sickened by the actions taken to wipe out terrorist nests. They are said to be collective punishments. War is ugly. Palestinians live in appalling conditions at the best of times and suffer because of the situation. Similarly Israel are said to exacerbate the tension by creating settlements in areas that it is generally accepted would be given to the Palestinians in a settlement. 

There have been a decades long battle between Israel and Palestine Territories and several attempts to resolve the issue - the last one being in 2002 arbitrated by President Clinton. According to Clinton, Israel’s Barak conceded to virtually all Arafat’s demands and Arafat reneged and unleashed the second Intifada.  

THE BASIS FOR THE BOYCOTT

The onus is on the boycotters as to why with all the inequities, violence and wars at present they have singled out Israel alone for this humiliating treatment?

The questions that arise: What singles out Israel, of all countries at war to merit this attention and for their academics to be boycotted? How does one put Israel in a situation comparative to nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa?  Because of the alleged Israeli Government behavior, do the academic and cultural institutions merit this treatment?  Interestingly much of the opposition to Netanyahu comes from them. Are there similar situations in the world which are the same or worse and should therefore merit a similar response? Is the collateral damage in Israeli reprisals to attacks far worse than any other? If the answer to these questions are in the negative Israel is being singled out and discriminated against and the only reason for that can be anti -semitism.

               COMPARISON 

To compare the wholesale murder of six million Jews in the gas chambers having relegated them to sub human beings with the alleged excesses that occur in the Israeli - Palestinian war situation where the Israelis are responding to attacks and murder of their citizens is obscene. Are the Israelis piling the Palestinians in occupied territories into trains and taking them to labor camps to incinerate them? They are not even executing those that have murdered Israeli citizens. This is not a reasonable comparison. 

The South African analogy shows a woeful ignorance of apartheid and its legislation. Here people were living and working in a country when the regime unilaterally declared them foreigners who needed papers to now become itinerant laborers. They were declared  citizens of another country where in most instances the "country" had not even been created. Then those that were legitimately in "white South Africa" were forced to live in ghettos, denied the vote, not allowed to use the facilities open to whites, only allowed menial jobs, discriminated and brutalized by the legal system and given inferior education for example. They were also afforded with no representation in government. There is no evidence whatsoever that is what Israel is doing in Israel or the Palestinian territories.

In Israel itself the Palestinians have full rights and it would be unreasonable, (or is it?), to expect that the Palestinians of the Territories be allowed to become Israeli citizens and therefore take over the State of Israel. At present the Palestinians in the territories govern themselves and are in a position to be negotiating their future. As Abbas said he wished that the Arab world had accepted the UNO two state solution in 1948 instead of descending upon Israel.  Again to compare Israel’s actions to apartheid South Africa implies that the Palestinians in the territories are really citizens of Israel and Israel should hand over the country to those who in fact declared war on them. This is not a reasonable request. No other country has ever been asked to do this.

The very fact that the tendenitious terms of holocaust and apartheid are used shows bias. When the Muslims were being murdered in Bosnia and as is now happening in the Sudan the more genteel term "ethnic cleansing" is used. However Israel who is not attempting to wipe out the Palestinians are Nazi Germany. 

There are examples to day, even with drone attacks, and since time immemorial of collateral damage in wars. Britain was merciless, following on their own experiences, in bombing civilian Germany. The Palestine objective is just to cause collateral damage. Let us just take one modern day example: China has been in an ongoing war with Tibet. China has been brutal in what can be only categorized as an imperial war. To the best of Jay H. Ell’s knowledge this situation that is far worse than the Israeli situation but has not resulted in a boycott of Chinese academics. This has to be indictive of prejudice and discrimination towards Israel.

So on the basis of the facts Israel is being uniquely discriminated against and what other reason can that be other than that it is the Jewish Israeli State. Taken with what is going on with European naked anti - semitism, it can only be interpreted as part of the new anti -semitism.

                THE FUTURE

This does not take any criticism away from the Netanyahu - Liebermann axis. Israel is in the power situation and they need to make the moves. They have to appreciate that the Palestinians are victims of history. A great start would be to recognize that the settlements have to be negotiable or at least provide acceptable land swaps and see that no new ones created. Also a tough line needs to be taken on those extremists that are exacerbating and escalating tension between Israel and the Middle East. If Netanyahu expects the Palestinians to curb their extremists he has to take the tough decsions to do likewise. The current peace talks are under way and as complicated and as difficult as they might be Israel has to hang in there.

Netanyahu must not rely on the fact that the Israeli cause is so popular in the USA. In the USA anything that he does or demands will be supported. This is false security as his electorate want to be able to sleep at night. The fact that the American Congress are backing his every move and are unconditionally supporting him does not resolve the day to day situation in Israel.

One can only hope that the current settlement talks will finally lead to a workable compromise.

If and when a settlement is arrived at presumably the boycott on Israeli academics will be lifted.