THE CLIMATE CHANGES ON CLIMATE CHANGE:
Pope Francis has called on all Christians to become the “Custodians of Creation” and to tackle climate change, “Because if we destroy creation creation will destroy us. Never forget this”, he concluded. In addition, the former Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth, Lord Jonathan Sacks, told a group of Jewish Scholars that the most important issue of our time, is not the increasing antipathy towards religion, the Middle East or Israel’s survival, but climate change. So you have to know the issue is pretty serious.
These statements come almost contemporaneously with the Supreme Court ruling, 7 - 2, to uphold the Environmental Protection Agency’s, (EPA), ability to control emission limits on big industry. In the same news cycle, “The Risky Business Organization” with a powerhouse of participants across the political and business spectrum issued a devastating prognostication as to what would happen to the country’s economy and standard of living if the carbon dioxide levels were not drastically curtailed. In addition a billionaire stated that he would spending a $100,000,000 on the 2014 election on candidates that back climate control.
So one has to believe that there has been some divine intervention.
POLITICAL REALITY
So finally, in almost a nano second,those who support Climate Control are no longer flakes and those who don’t will soon be joining the flat earthers. The catch will be turning this into political action. The GOP has attacked Obama again and again when he is on his climate gig maintaining that he is using it as a wedge issue against the Republicans. The Democrats are riding it high and see the same signs in the stars as they saw with same sex marriage. The Tea Party wear their label as flat earthers as a badge of honor and truth. In fact if there is going to be any joy from them it will be after 2014 as defending the energy status quo is central to GOP fortunes in crucial Senate elections. Mitch McConnell, GOP leader in the Senate, is fighting for his political life and attacking his opponent as being anti coal.(Not pro climate change).
But lets leave all that for the moment and examine the positive.
SUPREME COURT
The EPA and Obama have taken much into their hands on emission control as the “do nothing” congress has done zilch to meet the problem. So Presidential Executive order and the Environmental Protection Agency interpretation have been moving greenhouse gas regulation along. The EPA has 86% of the current major pollution spewers under control and the Court allowed them 83%. This ruling applies to existing plants. Members of the Court, as part of their judgement, shouted the odds at the agency and are obviously not very happy at their own decision. The author of the judgement Antonio Scalia, raved on that the EPA were “laying claim to extravagant statutory power over the national economy and asserting that the Statute would be unrecognizable to the Congress that designed it”. The Court made it quite clear that further statutory powers would not easily be granted - Scalia - “We are not willing to stand on the dock while the EPA make a multiyear voyage of Discovery”. The Court stated that any further regulation of energy would need Congress legislation.
However,the EPA was given the go - ahead and the biggest polluters would have to use the best technology available to restrict greenhouse gasses. For this they needed new facilities or upgrades as fast as possible.The EPA greeted the verdict enthusiastically maintaining that, “Today was a good day for all supporters of clean air and public health and those concerned for creating a better environment for future generations”.
OBAMA’S CLEAN POWER PLAN
It remains to be seen how the Clean Power Plan announced by the EPA on June 2, 2014 will fair in the Supreme Court. The powers that Obama announced here are more comprehensive and extensive than in the current legislation. Here the focus will be on States where the hope is that carbon emissions will be reduced. The State is given flexibility in how it effects change. The goal has been set to reduce greenhouse gasses by 30% by 2030. A formula has been defined as to how to measure carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector. A mix of making power plants more energy efficient, improving their operations and relying more on low carbon energy producing making entities are the potential remedies. The EPA notes that nearly all states have one or other method for reducing Carbon emissions.
There are also activities that are taking place in the market place that have already had an impact. The availability of an excess of cheap natural gas has made a sizable dent in the usage of coal as an energy source.
So there is no doubt that the carbon dioxide curbs have taken a life of their own.
RISKY BUSINESS PROJECT ON THE ECONOMIC RISKS OF CLIMATE CHANGE.
An organization entitled Risky Business, with a top profile management, set into motion a research project to evaluate the destruction and economic devastation that failure to introduce climate containment may bring about. The data was obtained from peer reviewed science climate projections through the year 2100. Also empirical estimates of the effect that the pollution would have on temperature, sea levels, precipitation and storm activity were derived. Furthermore calculations were made as to how this would impact the US economy.
The findings listed named the probable hardest hit regions in the US. In addition the data analyzed the impact high seas would have on coastal properties and infrastructure, the outcome of extreme heat on health, labor output and additional energy needs and in agricultural output.
Before going any further the management team involved must be introduced as their status lends profound gravitas to the findings.
Membership.
The Co Chairmen are Former New York Mayor and gun reform advocate, billionaire Michael Bloomberg, Hank Paulson,the legendary Secretary of the Treasury under George W. Bush and Tom Steyer a prominent businessman who has been active in many philanthropic activities including the Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, “Giving Pledge Organization” where the participants have pledged the majority of their fortune to charity.
The additional members are George Schultz, a doyen of the Republican establishment having occupied several cabinet positions in several administrations, Robert Rubin, the whizz kid who was responsible for the Clinton economic success, Donna Shalala, Clinton’s Secretary of Health, Olympia Snowe the highly respected veteran Republican ex Senator, Henry Cisneros former Mayor of San Antonio and Secretary of HUD, prominent businessman Gregory Page and Al Sommer former Dean of John Hopkin’s School of Public Health. All of them are still active in Foundations and the like and represent, with the Co Chairmen more credibility than any political commission or research group that could be put together.
Findings.
An early observation by the group was that failure to address the issue has already brought about change resulting in human suffering and economic loss. Hurricane Sandy on the East Coast, including New York and New Jersey, (who could ever forget that they were involved!), was a freak incident that has been scientifically accredited to climate change. Bloomberg, in his Executive summary points to the billions of dollars that have already been lost to local economies by altered weather conditions.
The report thus highlights the urgency to act. It also emphasizes that in addition to the earlier jolts that the damage can grow materially within the next 5 to 15 years. The estimations from higher storm surges will add to the present hurricane costs another 7 billion dollars. Over a similar period of time the crops of corn, wheat, soy and cotton can decrease by 10% to 20% and energy needs will increase to the extent of creating another 200 coal or natural gas plants at a cost of $12 billion per year as a result of the higher temperatures.
The report in general delineates the gloomy forecasts as to what the situation might be look with no intervention by the years 2050 and 2100.
Coastal Properties
The value of properties that will be below sea level decreases rapidly and by 2050 and up to a $100 billion will be lost and by 2100 up to $500 billion. However this figure could be even higher and at high tide it could be up to $1.4 trillion in property damage. In addition the impact of the hurricanes and other storms could be heightened increasing the loss caused by those natural disasters. These effects will be seen mainly in the Southeast of the USA and the whole Atlantic seaboard.
Extreme Heat
By 2050 the number of days the average American will experience heat above 95F will treble up to 50 days a year and by the end of the century up to a 100. However in the upper Midwest, Southwest and Southeast these temperatures might be present for months on end. This will impact productivity, health and energy costs. Without effective air conditioning the deaths from heat stroke and dehydration will increase appreciably.
Agriculture
The projected diminutions in supply of corn, soy, wheat and cotton over the century, mainly in the Southeast, Great Plains and Midwest, are as high as 70%. It is hoped that the warmer temperatures and carbon fertilization by increasing productivity in the upper Northern areas and upper Great Plains may compensate for some of these losses. But such a reduction in staple crops has to produce widespread chaos with increased costs of staples and even deaths by starvation.
RESPONSE NEEDED
As this is fundamentally a business assessment suggestions are made to that community as well. Also adaptations need to be made urgently as climate change has already had an impact.
The business community most largely affected is agriculture. Changing crops will involve financial loss in the process as well as cost for new equipment. In addition construction in coastal areas has to change it’s building codes and materials. Although business can do its share as can local communities and States but as the report maintains the response is going to need a coordinated national effort. Likewise investors need to take climate variables into their calculations. The Securities Exchange Commission in 2010 issued guidelines to companies to assess and disclose their risk from climate change yet 40% of the companies in the Standard and Poor index have not as yet done so.
The report, while urging the business community to become actively involved, acknowledges that the onus to meet this challenge really lies predominantly in the Public Sector. It quotes an intergovernmental report stating that there is really only 15 years to act before the situation becomes intolerable.
AT THE END OF THE DAY.
It really will all come down to Congress. The Supreme Court have served notice that they have let the President and the EPA go this far and no further. For anything to happen it will require a seismic change in attitude by the current GOP in Congress. (In fact the Republicans are so angry about the President acting so effectively on his own that they are taking him to court on his alleged misuse of Executive Power).
One might hope that this authoritative bipartisan and expert Risky Business Report would have some influence on Congress, but don’t hold your breath. (There still is Tom Steyer, one of the co chairman of this report, who is backing climate change candidates with a $100 million dollars. Unbelievably, this is peanuts in relation to the money being thrown into the ring of Congressional elections these days). Really, what will it take for our legislature to acknowledge its responsibilities? Nothing it seems. All those shootings yet the NRA still rule supreme. Ninety - five percent of women have used contraception yet it is still a big issue in the Republican Party. And on and on. One just has to believe the electorate will wake up to the issues they indicate are their priorities and reflect their choices at the ballot box. Remember what Winston Churchill said, “You can trust America to do the right thing after they have tried everything else”. He should have known his mother was American.
Amidst the Middle East’s explosive chaos the advice to the American President is all over the map. McCain would have us in, boots and all - once again with feeling. His hawk bosom buddy, Lindsey Graham, would have us talk nicely to join up with Iran and get rid of ISIS. Dick Cheney and his daughter have formed a new organization, Alliance for a Stronger America, to get America involved in Iraq. They together with all the other neocons like Wolpowitz and Brenner, who on arriving in Bush’s Iraq completely disassembled the whole lawkeeping infrastructure - is that we should at least bomb. There are those who caution but are saying nothing for the moment, so Jay H. Ell is going to represent the silent majority.
Jay H. Ell’s advice to the Commander in Chief is, “Don’t just stand there. Do nothing!
IN THE BEGINNING
While everyone is blaming George W. Bush, (43), for starting it all by throwing out Sadam and thereby destabilizing the whole area and/or blaming Barak for not staying there forever to prevent this type of chaos from occurring, those really culpable are the Brits and to a lesser extent the French. They are skulking out of it but they created the problem. After World War 1 with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the whole area was divided up between them. They created countries that never existed before by drawing lines on maps thereby splitting the spoils. The Brits bagged Iraq, because they were into oil already. The French got Syria and Lebanon. (The British in addition were mandated Jordan and Palestine).
There was a fascinating piece in The Daily Beast by Clive Irving on the role of the “British Orientalists” played in expanding the British Empire in the Middle East. He discussed the role of one, Getrude Bell, whom was labelled “Getrude Of Arabia”. She was instrumental in the establishment of Iraq. Apparently she rigged an election and installed a King who was loyal to the British crown and then went home. From then on it has hardly been any different.
The two major sects in these countries are the Muslim Shia and the Muslim Sunni and they are present in both Iraq and Syria. The Colonial Powers just supported whatever friendly, (to them that is), authoritarian regime that was in control. Now, while peace has occasionally broken out, within and between these newly created States, they mainly have been at odds with each other and often at war internally and externally.
So for practical purposes we now have a war between the Sunnis and the Shia across the whole artificial divide that the colonial masters created. It has gotten very ugly. Neither side is very civilized by Western standards and are behaving barbarically in trying to gain ascendency. (Blog: ISIS, Sharia Law, Hamas Terrorism and The Methodist Church).
WHAT GOT IT GOING RECENTLY.
This all began in Syria where a Shia minority was controlling a Sunni majority. The Syrian government, was, as one might expect, totalitarian. The Sunnis wanted a fair shake and Assad the Shia Syrian President brutally suppressed the opposition with killings, chemical warfare and the like. The problem was although the opposition were being brutalized, and their’s is the side the West should have been on, they were fragmented and included a host of terrorist groups including Al Qaeda and the quaintly named organization, Islamic States of Syria and Iraq, (ISIS). Saudi Arabia, (Sunni) were supposedly supporting the opposition whoever they were and Iran, (Shia) were backing Assad directly and indirectly via their surrogate, the terrorist organization, Hezbollah.
The problem really escalated dramatically when ISIS , having secured Eastern Syria suddenly decided to invade Iraq and join up with the Sunnis there, including Sadam’s Baath party, Sunni tribes and create what their name suggests, an Islamic State, (Sunni), of Syria and Iraq. Their brutality superseded that of Assad of Syria. This made Iran very tense because they did not want to see their Iraq Shia ally, Maliki, himself no democrat, lose out. Especially as ISIS grabbed a half a billion in cash and went for the oil fields.
Meanwhile back in the Western world the agitation grew for the NATO countries to get involved. Even more so now that Iraq has been invaded. Up till now they have resisted these pleas.
USA RATIONALE FOR FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT AND THE OBAMA DOCTRINE.
There are two possible motivations for the West, specifically the USA, to become involved in foreign wars. They are either national security or humanitarian concerns. The argument for intervention on humanitarian grounds here is very strong because the barbarism displayed would make Attila the Hun blush. There are hundred of thousands that are displaced and are refugees. Not to mention the loss of life, limb and property of the innocents already caught in the middle.
Till now Obama has resisted intercession and this is in tune with his doctrine on foreign policy. He has to the chagrin of many adapted an isolationist attitude to intervention in foreign squabbles.This is counter to the foreign policy of USA post second world war where they were everywhere for 40 years in the fight against Communism. Both Bushs, 41 and 43, and Clinton for the next 20 years, at least, rationalized that they were fighting to prevent evil and or for a better world. Just think, Saddam's Iraq times two, Bosnia, Haiti, Panama, Somalia for example.
“Normalcy” by Robert Kagan, published in The New Republican is a seminal analysis of American foreign policy in the last 100 years and is a must read. Kagan states that George H. W. Bush, (41), described American foreign policy in terms of national ideals and not national interest. Kagan maintains that Clinton claimed that America was an “indispensable nation” to world order. USA had a moral obligation to monitor and thrust themselves into disputes on the side of “right”.
When Obama got elected he opined that he intended to deal with the world “as it is” rather than “how it should be”. Put another way there would be no wars for “ideals” . America could no longer accept the role as the arbiter and policeman of international morality. Kagan maintains that since 1989 only one US intervention has been in national security interest and that is Afghanistan. Obama has been there and done that.
WHY JAY H ELL THINKS OBAMA IS GOING IN TO IRAQ
Obama has stated that he believes that ISIS going into Iraq affects American national interest. Maliki has officially asked him for air cover. Maliki had to have been told that if he wanted help he better ask for it publicly because he is he type of guy that once America has done his dirty work he will throw them out and say ,”Who asked you in the first place”. So that bit is in place. Then Obama, in front of the world, addressed the four Congress leaders about the situation and the only message to come out of that meeting was, “He could use force in Iraq without going to Congress”. There was no argument from the Republicans or Democrats. They probably all agreed that maybe Obama should be given the option of surprise. The think tank, Progress for America, headed by John Podesta, a Clinton and Obama operative, believes that there should be limited air strikes. They argue that this will not solve the whole problem and their language seems to indicate that the quid pro quo should be that Maliki would have to make an effort at getting a government of national unity. Progress for America is said to be the think tank closest to Obama policy decision making.
WHY JAY H. ELL THINKS OBAMA SHOULDN’T GO INTO IRAQ AND SHOULD STAY HOME
Progress for America spokespersons were all over the media explaining their rationale. Jay H. Ell believes that their argument is tautologous and as the air strikes have no fixed objective. What is the point! What does “limited” air strikes mean. When do you stop?
Any action pro Maliki gets Obama involved in the Shia/Sunni fight. He is opting for Shia here. Why? Because he thinks their atrocities aren’t as bad? Is it because this is interrupting the oil supply? - generally speaking that is not Obama’s style. Also getting involved with Maliki means at least some cooperation with Iran. Iran, it is speculated, in the media, want a quid pro quo for their getting into bed with the USA and it begins with nuclear. This will make an impossible situation even more impossible. The Saudis will go ballistic and will want nuclear weapons not to mention Turkey and Egypt.
Most importantly whatever Obama does will have no impact on the hatred the Sunnis and Shia have for each other. They will carry on killing each other come what may. Obama has got to let this play out and deal with the world as it will become. He has to keep his eye on the ball and the ball is Iran.
Tons of humanitarian aid is the order of the day so let him go ahead with that.
And guess what David Petraues, the former Commander of the Coalition of forces in Iraq, came out in agreement with Jay H. Ell. The argument he used is that the USA would be taking sides in the age old battle between the Sunnis and Shia. He states that Maliki has not delivered on a Government of national unity and the USA would not be supporting a government it would be supporting a sect.
So Barak it is not to late - Don’t just stand there do nothing and stay home!”.
Maybe it is already to late. Obama has just committed himself to 300 advisors on the ground and “targeted action” if necessary…….. He is also reported to be pressuring Maliki to resign. So who is giving him permission to go and advise? Who will be the new guy? How will he be elected? How and what are the 300 going to do? How do you advise an army that doesn’t want to fight? What is the middle and end game?
“When will we ever learn. When will we ever learn”
It is very difficult to interpret world reaction on the happenings in the Middle East. While depravity was being spread by the newly established terrorist group, Islamic States of Syria and Iraq, amidst the already ongoing wholesale slaughter in Syria and Iraq and another act of terrorism perpetrated where three Jewish teenagers were kidnapped by Hamas, the Methodist Church’s pension fund disinvested itself of shares of a British company that supplied Israel with equipment some of which was being used in Gaza. These were three of the top stories this last weekend.
Now Jay H. Ell has blogged again and again that although he wholly disapproves of the expansion of Israeli settlements he is still coming more and round to the fact that at best we are dealing with double standards and at worst anti - semitism in the world’s attitude to Israel. (Blog: The New Antisemitism In Europe And Boycotts Of Israeli Universities). He has also said that there is enough blame to go around for everyone. With Abbas joining Hamas Jay H. Ell has joined Israel’s peaceniks in questioning whether the Palestinian leadership has ever been serious about the two state solution. (Blog: Abbas and Arafat - The Same DNA - So Lets Get Real). However, he hasn’t entirely given up hope. (Blog: De Klerk, Mandela, Israel, Apartheid and Change).
This focus on Israel is not unique it is pervasive. Why since the UNO’s inception have 82% of the General Assembly’s resolutions, amidst all the world chaos, genocides, ethnic cleansings, persecution and inhumanity to women and children and on and on, been condemnations of Israel?
SHARIA LAW.
Sharia law is orthodoxy to Islam. The crisp point is at the moment vast tracts of Iraq and Syria are having it imposed on them by the extremist group of militants, Islamic States of Syria and Iraq, (ISIS). The policy of ISIS is Sharia law for the whole area. Under Sharia law death sentences are at the whim of the powerful and there are already grotesque photos of wholesale executions by ISIS with the heading, “Apostates heading to their hole of doom”. Also ISIS claim they are a State and are entitled to tax under Sharia law. This is their rationalization for their theft of nearly $500 million from the Mosul bank and seizure of the over 10 billion military arsenal given to the Iraqis by the USA.
While Sharia law covers a host of areas it is barbaric particularly in relation to women and children.
It includes the following:
Amputation for theft.
Stoning to death for a adultery (Of the woman of course).
Death sentences for the following; Criticizing Mohammed or Qran, conversion to Christianity, marrying out of the faith.
A Woman can only have one husband and a man four wives.
A man can marry an infant and consummate the marriage at 9 years of age. (Apparently that has been changed to 13 years).
Girls clitorises should be cut
Rape must be witnessed by 4 witnesses and a woman cannot testify against the accused.
A women’s testimony in court counts half of that of a male and she cannot drive herself there as she is not allowed to drive a car.
This is heavy stuff by any standards and nearly all Muslims in Western Countries disagree with this but it is being enforced on large numbers and the new Libya adapted it in 2013 for example. All this is happening, without any action or organized condemnation, as the major thrust of Middle East Policy activism is to condemn Israel, for the failure to create a two party state, which is not solely their responsibility.
Now United Nations have their Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and they have tracts on the rights of women and children but not one resolution, that Jay H. Ell can find, specifically condemning Middle East countries or groups for carrying out any of these practices. There has been criticism by Muslim academics and clerics that the UNO Declaration of Human Rights is a Western based Judea- Christain document and does not take into account the Islam position on Sharia law.
So why has no country or major group taken this on as in issue? Anybody boycotting the oil companies for investing in Saudi Arabia where Sharia Law reigns supreme? Anybody boycotting the airlines flying to Dubai because they won’t officially let Jews in to even visit? Dick Cheney’s company Halliburton moved its main headquarters to Dubai. Halliburton that received non compete bids making forty billion dollars profit during the Iraqi war has presumably gone to Dubai to pay less taxes. Not a word about boycotting Halliburton that is supporting the antisemitic Dubai economy? Any major international thrust against Sharia Law?
IRAQ AND SYRIA
Then prior to the recent inhumanities by ISIS, Syria and Iraq have been themselves responsible for the grossest violations of human rights. Assad of Syria has been ruthlessly killing off opposition. Women and children have been raped. Chemical weapons have been used. All this going on for over 2 years when the response to protests by Syrian protestors in March 2011 was deadly violence that has never abated.There have been over a 100,000 deaths, millions of refugees and a catalogue of human rights abuses. Other than vague exhortations to get to the negotiating table where are the UNO Resolutions?
Maliki of Iraq has been the very essence of a sectarian ruler also paying scant regard to the rule of law. He unceremoniously kicked the USA out and then sentenced his Sunni Vice President to death.
Now both Iraq and Syria have Universities but for whatever reason no self righteous academics are initiating academic boycotts against them. Why?
HAMAS TEENAGER KIDNAPPING.
The recent kidnapping of three Jewish teenagers by Hamas is yet another in the long list of terrorist acts perpetrated by, originally, the PLO and now more predominantly by Hamas. There is no justification for this behavior which is Abbas’s responsibility as well. Ostensibly there is nothing else Hamas can do to reflect its despondency and sense of hopelessness. Well, Jay H. Ell will tell them one thing they can do - recognize Israel as a State and start negotiations for a two party State solution that has been UNO policy since 1947 and been resisted ever since. They will find that there will be a large amount of support for the formation of a contiguous Palestine state, If they don’t want to acknowledge Israel’s existence they must face the reality that they are in a declared state of war with Israel and stop whining, with the world’s support, that Israel are not fighting fair.
METHODIST CHURCH
Now Jay H. Ell must apologize for picking on the Methodist Church it just so happens that their resolution coincided with this weekend’s stories. Their pension fund is after all only selling about $100,000 worth of the stock of a British company dealing with Israel. It is also unlikely that the majority of Methodist Church goers would agree with the decision. There a host of other “well meaning” groups that have performed similar actions. Jay H. Ell is not quite sure what they hope to achieve by this.
Jay H.Ell would suggest to these bodies that they do something constructive if peace in the Middle East is truly their objective. How about creating forums of businessmen, church leaders, students, academics from both sides of the divide to find common ground so that they can pressure their politicians?
AT THE END OF THE DAY.
As the Middle East becomes more and more of a cauldron of barbarism the world should pause a bit before dreaming up the next barb at Israel. On balance it is the only country that runs itself on human rights and the rule of law and it is a beacon of sanity in a sea of madness. Maybe there could be a UNO General Assembly Resolution condemning all of the above behavior. Just one. Or is it all really about oil on the one side and double standards on the other?
Jay H. Ell’s guess is that it is far more likely that there will a steady flow of resolutions from pension funds, universities and other institutions whose contribution to Middle East Peace will be yet another boycott of either an Israeli company or a company doing business with it. ISIS, Syria, Iraq and Hamas will appreciate their concern for justice. They may even get a thank you letter for their efforts.
Jay H. Ell has always wondered why isolated US elections never seem to evoke too much interest and extrapolation by the pundits. Jay H. Ell comes from a British Commonwealth Westminster Parliamentary environment where every election, minor or major, was analyzed up the ying yang as to it’s reflection of the overall electorate’s sentiments. Since coming to the US he has been consistently put down. In the words of the legendary House Speaker, Tip O’ Neill, “All politics are local”, he has been told. After all do 65 thousand of 235 million voters represent political reality? Jay H. Ell believes that there have to be factors that are relevant to the whole electorate that are involved in every political election, where ever it may be. Finally, the defeat of Eric Cantor, the number two Republican in the House of Representatives, in an election as to who was be the nominee in a very safe Republican House seat, has proved him correct. The whole American political world is analyzing why and what it means.
THE FACTS .
As Fox News, in their internet news letter has stated, the 28% turnout in the Primary of the 7th Virginian District was above the normal interest so that this was not as a result of “apathy”. Also Cantor spent over $5 million on the campaign to his opponent Brat’s less than $200,000. So the result is as reflective as it can be for that District.
The Virginia’s 7th Congressional District had been gerrymandered to the extent that the highly conservative Cantor could never ever fear challenge from the Democrats. How was he to know that the challenge would come from the right?
Ostensibly the central issue was immigration and Cantor’s alleged support of it. While this will remain the conventional wisdom there is no support in the polls in West Virginia for that assumption. Generally speaking, the surveys show 70% of the voters in that Primary were supportive of the plight of the undocumented Latinos and reform. However, as this was what Brat ran on it will stick as the rationale as to why he won and Cantor lost.
All the polls supported Cantor. His own internal polls showed him winning by a 40% margin and Nate Silver, the Moses of prognostication, gave him at least a 20% advantage. It is not an unreasonable assumption to make, that in the current political environment, polls mean nothing.
The Tea Party has claimed success but they were nowhere in sight during the election. Part of the reason they weren’t there is that Cantor has been their man in the House of Representatives. Other than the occasional move to support Boehner, he was the leader of the Tea Party faction allowing nothing to be done in Congress other than propose the revoking of Obamacare. He was the de facto leader of the Tea Party in that he oversaw that the minority of Congressmen that the Tea Party represented, had their way.
So why was Cantor beaten?
THE REAL FACTS
Jay H. Ell has blogged till he is blue in the face that there is a major difference between public opinion and what the Republican Party Policy is in Congress. Women’s rights, minimum wage increase, contraception, immigration reform, increased taxation for rich, job creation, income inequality, allowing student loans to adjust to current interest rates, background checks for guns, and on and on, all have 70% rating. Yet while the country burns, Obamacare, Benghazi and Bergdahl and now Iraq are the sum total of the Republican agenda. They also still divide America up into the “givers” and the “takers”. The “givers” because they have “given” should “give” less. As for the “takers” the Ryan budget will “take” more from them as they have"taken" enough.
Now in this above reality in the mid term elections this selfsame Republican Party, whoever they eventually pan out to be, are expected to takeover the Senate by winning six seats in the Senate and increase their majority in the House. This is all explained by the dictum that, “All politics are local”. The polls also back these predictions at the moment. Jay H. Ell has lost faith in the polls in this current environment.
THE REALITY
The reality is that the impotent electorate is totally disgusted with Washington - their politicians, their lobbyists, their plutocrats, and their President as well.
Congress job disapproval at present, is 79% and approval rating is 14%. Obama’s job disapproval rating is 53% and approval rating is 43%. According to Rasmussen polling, 72% of participants believe that most of the current Congressmen should not be reelected. A generic poll gives the Democrats 41% of the vote and Republicans 37%. Fifty- nine percent of Republican voters maintain that their Congress representatives are out of touch with their base. (Whichever one that maybe!).
So there is a general discontent with government. On the face of it this anger is amorphous and has not gelled around issues. The challenge for the Democrats is for them to mobilize the electorate to vote for the issues that they ostensibly support. There is no doubt this will be reflected by 2016 but the midterm elections remain “murky”.
SO THE REAL REALTIY
So Cantor got kicked out for all of the above. The issue was ostensibly immigration but the electorate that removed him are 70% in favor of the immigrants’ plight. The real reason was that everyone was sick and tired of being taken for granted and ignored. They were more moved by this arrogance as well as Cantor’s personal arrogance than they were by how terribly important was “immigration”. Cantor, probably the most powerful figure in their party, was given a message to deliver to the party.
In case the Tea Party are written off as a total joke they have a clear cut philosophy some of which conflicts in many ways with the Establishment Republican Party. Ironically, the issue that Brat rated the most important was his free market agenda. This coincides with a key Democratic approach. Big business needs to stay out of politics maintain the Tea Party and Brat. Brat attacked the Chamber of Commerce in this Primary. The latter was a big supporter of Cantor.
HOW WILL THIS PLAY IN PEORIA AND EVERY WHERE ELSE
The opinion of 65,000 of about 235,000,000 voters all of a sudden is changing the way the world perceives reality.
While it is obvious that the anger is at the dysfunction of Congress the Republican Congressmen response is to do even less. If they do more, they believe, the “Tea Party” will vote them out in their primaries. If, however, they maintain that attitude they will all be thrown out anyway. If Eric Cantor is too left for his electorate then they all are. (Except those that say no to 100% of legislation and not 99.8%).
Just to take the one issue that the majority of the electorate are in favor of, immigration reform. If the GOP Congressmen do nothing about that they believe that makes them safer in their own constituencies. Well it may just usher them out of power in 2016. The most important demographic is the Latino vote. Boehner knows it and he mocked his caucus for not being prepared to take it on. After the Cantor Primary he will join those he mocked
So the conventional wisdom is that the Virginia Primary is an electorate move to the right. It is not. It is a move to register disgust. The Tea Party are on the whole losing traction but they have left their imprimatur on what one might call the “new” GOP. The “new” GOP in order to counter the Tea Party have taken over several of their principles.
If this trend continues the GOP, as we all understand it, will eventually disintegrate. This may not happen in 2014 but as the issues gel and are attached to parties they cannot run on negatives forever. The electorate is generally confused and has not kept up with the chaos and transformation of the Republican Party. If Republican voters are still screaming at Obamacare as it will take away their Medicare they are still buying that and that Obama is the total problem.
The Democrats are still lumped with the Congress dysfunction and have their work cut out to distance themselves from the no work GOP. But as time proceeds it will be obvious who stands for what. For the country’s sake there need to be clear cut choices.
Finally, to answer the question of the blog -“ Cantor - Hype or Train Smash?”, it is a “train smash” for the Republican Party. It is a wake up call. However they have got the message wrong it is not to move to the right and to axe immigration reform for example. It is to present a clear cut alternative. It is a message to stop running on negatives and produce alternatives that can be debated and if necessary compromised on.
If Jan Christiaan Smuts was the white politician who might have prevented apartheid, (Blog: Smuts: The Man Who Might Have Prevented Apartheid, 1/22/14), Frederick Willem De Klerk was certainly the white politician that ended it nearly 50 years after its ignominious start. This all came to light, once again, in his acceptance speech of an honorary degree at the University of Haifa, Israel, at the end of last month. While Smuts,was already a major figure on the international stage and was a likely candidate to oppose apartheid’s introduction, De Klerk was one of the most improbable of any Afrikaner Nationalist leader to be the initiator of what has to be the most peaceful and inconceivable changes of a regime in the twentieth century. It is not often that a government voluntarily negotiates itself out of power and that is exactly what happened under the initiative of De Klerk.
DE KLERK’S UNLIKELY COUP OF WHITE RULE
To the extent that De Klerk would be, on the face of it, the last partisan on earth to effect such an historic event, his election to the South African Presidency by the Nationalist Party in 1989, narrowly defeating all the moderates in the process, resulted in a deep despondency by opponents of apartheid that there could ever be a shift to sanity. He was put into power by the Conservative wing of the Party, having come from a fundamentalist apartheid background. There had been nothing in his resume that could have foretold the bold decisive strokes he was about to make on the South African canvas. Just perhaps one clue was evident as to what was going on behind the scenes. His brother Wimpie De Klerk was the editor of a progressive Nationalist newspaper and had in the past attacked him with the rest of the hierarchy for being inflexible. Wimpie had “laid off” his brother for some time and shortly after De Klerk’s assumption to power it became obvious why.
De Klerk was the very antithesis of the Mandela personality. He was quietly spoken not given to flamboyance and drama. He was a party “apparachnik” having steadily worked his way through the ranks. Yet not only did he announce Mandela’s release, the unbanning of the ANC and other anti government parties and organizations as well as the Communist Party in conjunction with the oppressive apartheid apparatus, he unequivocally, without any preconditions, set into motion the end of apartheid and white domination.
He was then able to win a referendum with 70% of the white voters endorsing his bold initiative. A remarkable feat by any standards and a miracle to anyone who truly knew the South African scene. Also a little known fact is that he terminated the South African Nuclear program as early as 1991.
De Klerk would be the first to acknowledge the role of several other white leaders who paved the way for his coup de grace. There were those in his own Party such as Pik Botha and Roelf Meyer who made pivotal contributions. The latter negotiating tirelessly with Mbecki, as head of the exiled ANC, in London. Then there was VanZyl Slabbert, who as head of the opposition party, left “white” politics to help lay the groundwork for what was to happen. There were business men too as well as the icon and grand poobah of South African sport, the rugby God Danie Craven, all who were ferrying backwards and forwards with meetings with the ANC. (Not to mention the literally thousands of whites, in all capacities and positions, that had fought apartheid from the word go lending credibility to the fact that not all the whites were responsible. Several of those in opposition paid a heavy price, including loss of liberty, harassment, abuse and financial sacrifice for their efforts).
De Klerk was criticized by Hermann Giliomee, the renowned Nationalist commentator, for not being able to stand up to Mandela in the drawn out negotiations for a new South Africa. However, in reality, the President was totally dependent on Mandela’s largesse as any failure of the negotiations would have been laid at De Klerk’s door, having made the opening unconditional gambits. He was thus a sitting duck to be criticized that he would not “walk the walk”.
As might be expected there was tension between the two of them but De Klerk acknowledged Mandela from the beginning to the end and said that he was, “The greatest living South African that ever lived”. At the end of the day Mandela never let him down in so far as there was the creation of the Constitutional Court with wide reaching powers that might curtail the excesses of power that a future government might be seduced into taking. Also with Mandela’s support the Truth and Conciliation Commission was put into place that would rather result in confession, healing and redemption than revenge and retribution. Mandela, to the chagrin of his followers, agreed that the ANC’s violations could be examined by this Commission as well.
Margaret Thatcher in her biography compared De Klerk to Gorbachev as being a leader with vision and boldness. De Klerk is truly one of the greats of the twentieth century, a fact at least acknowledged by the Nobel Committee when they awarded both him and Mandela the Peace Prize in1993.
Thus it is fair to say that his opinions and advice in areas of conflict and tension have a tremendous amount of weight and influence. It is in this context that his remarks on the current situation in Israel bear a great deal of significance.
DE KLERK, HONORARY DEGREE FROM HAIFA UNIVERSITY AND ISRAEL
At a time when a solution to the Israeli - Palestinian crises seems unattainable, (Blog: Abbas and Arafat - The Same DNA - So Lets Get Real, 5/6/14), and Israel is being accused of being an apartheid State and Israeli Universities are being boycotted, (Blog: The New Anti - Semitism in Europe and the Boycott of Israeli Universities,1/3/14), the acceptance by Mr. De Klerk of an honorary degree from the University of Haifa was dripping with symbolism. In a short acceptance speech and a few brief interviews De Klerk, laid bare, as no-one else has, the situation Israel finds itself in and what its options are.
Firstly, De Klerk is not short of offers for honorary degrees. He could have easily ducked the Haifa proposition as he periodically has his “freedom fighter” credentials questioned. So why did he need to show which side of the Israeli debate he is on by going there? De Klerk’s imprimatur as well as his counsel is highly valued.
Secondly, no-one better than De Klerk should know what constitutes an apartheid state and his assertion, “that it is unfair to call Israel an apartheid State”, had to be of comfort to the beleaguered supporters of Israel.
Thirdly, he stated in an interview, and Jay H. Ell will deal with this later, that Israel has found itself in the position where the onus will be on them to “to take the window of opportunity” when it presents itself, otherwise they will risk becoming, (a de facto), apartheid state. The latter view is current in Israel at the moment and getting more and more oxygen. Kerry “misspoke” the same assertion that Israel’s reluctance to act may lead to apartheid.
DE KLERK’S ACCEPTANCE SPEECH
As contrasting as their personalities are, Mandela and De Klerk shared one feature in common - humility. De Klerk’s acceptance speech was a tribute to everyone else. He was just an accident of history that had “Greatness thrust upon him”. De Klerk laid out the variables that made the tumultuous event possible. There was the gigantic upheaval on the world scene with the breakdown of Communism and disintegration of the USSR. This he regarded as the key factor in the “window of opportunity” coupled with the realization that apartheid had failed and it was morally unjustifiable.
Jay H. Ell has blogged previously that the central reason for the formation of the Afrikaner Nationalist Party, that was ultimately to introduce apartheid, was their desire for economic equality and political power for the Afrikaners. Their fight was against the British. At the turn of the twentieth Century the principle reason they were against black rights was their fear that the English would gang up with the black races and further keep them under their thumb.
The Afrikaners were a rural population that were totally dominated by their urban English counterparts in the civil service, the educational system, the media, the financial houses and banks. By 1980 this state of affairs had been almost completely reversed. To many the apartheid system and the disgraceful authoritarian apparatus that propped it up was an embarrassment. To bolster this brutal system the Government had made a mockery of the rule of law. The rationalization for this legislation was that all opposition to apartheid, was at best pink and at worst Communism. The main law that sustained the unworkable system of apartheid was entitled “The Suppression of Communism Act” that now, with the fall of Communism, had become an untenable rationalization.
De Klerk makes another point that sanctions played a role in the outcome and he then immediately qualified that assertion, maintaining that they were largely counter - productive. They had the effect of making the establishment more defensive. Then it is never the regime leaders that are impacted as they are protected by wealth and stealth. It is the people that they are supposed to help that suffer. (In this context it is interesting to note who Obama is hitting in the sanctions campaign against Russia).
However the principle message De Klerk espoused in regard to the reversal of who would take the reins of power in South Africa was a willingness of leadership to negotiate in good faith and to seize upon the moments in history, when they presented themselves. If you miss the window of opportunity you may never have another, he argued.
ELABORATION OF THE MECHANISM OF CHANGE.
The former South African President elaborated on the process needed for a possible break in the Middle East deadlock and the result that failure to achieve it might mean to Israel.
It takes leaders with guts who are prepared to distance themselves from their hard core. Mandela asked for seclusion from his colleagues during the process. De Klerk said he and Mandela sat down and tried to imagine each others position. (A Rogerian principle where you try to unconditionally accept the “clients” position). They then wrote down what they agreed upon and found that they were far more in sync than they imagined. The “hard parts” were left for last.
With regard to the Israeli/Palestinian situation he had this to say. Israel, as a country, was a democracy in that had the highest values for human rights for all. However if the current situation continues indefinitely they will in fact become a country encompassing Palestinians who would be deprived of Israeli rights and this, by his definition, would make Israel an apartheid country. (As fashionable as this argument is at the moment, Jay H. Ell cannot buy it in full and much has to depend on the circumstances).
He implied that the onus was on Israel to find a way out of it and seemed to forget that on the one side he had taken the plunge and he already had a committed Mandela on the other. He could commit as Mandela already had.
Israel no longer had Rabins, Pereses, Baraks, Begins and Sharons for example. To make matters worse the cast of the opposition leadership, where it exists, seems to be less interested in solving the problem and more resolved on sitting it out and propagandizing that the Israel is committing crimes against humanity, even though it ostensibly doesn’t exist!
However, times change and hopefully leaders can change with them.
HOW CHANGE?
If Abbas and Netanyahu were to sit and write out what they agreed upon and what they wanted it might be a fascinating exercise. However, the cookie still has to crumble in the now “unified” Palestine. What will elections bring? Will Abbas triumph over Hamas and if he does, so what?
Jay H. Ell has long believed that the major international variable that needs transformation for an Israeli - Palestinian solution lies in Iran. (Blogs: Iran Behind the Israeli conflict, 11/17/12; Obama, Rouhani, Netanyahu, and the Nuclear Negotiations, 11/13/13; Obama, Netanyahu, Peres and the Ayatollahs - an Exercise in Futility, 12/11/13, and Netanyahu, Double Standards and the Middle East Negotiations, 2/8/14.)
Iran pulls the strings in the Middle East mess. Hezbollah, who has bailed Syria out, and Hamas, who periodically punctuate the brittle cease fire with rockets, are Iran’s surrogates. Palestine has no real support from Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, its original natural allies. For practical purposes it is Iran that is Palestine’s loan ally in the Middle East. Iran is under economic siege while holding talks on nuclear weapons that appear to be going nowhere. Or maybe they are going everywhere and we don’t know. In the meantime the Arab world is being split along Sunni -Shiite lines. The Saudis and company have had enough of Iran’s attempt to dominate the Muslim world and as such would be aligned with Israel. So if there is going to be outside transformation it will come from there and this will change the whole Middle East scenario.
Then the question arises if this does transpire are the current leadership up to seizing the moment or will it slip by? The onus to lead and therefore risk will be, as it has always been, on Israel. Also there has to be more of the cross pollination between well intentioned Israelis and Palestinians on various levels who want to see an end to this madness. There are already groups of parents that meet who have lost children in the struggle. All this would help lay the foundation for a peaceful solution.
