A look at the happenings and lack thereof from all corners of the Universe.

• China unveiled a $586 billion stimulus plan, or about $5.86 per person over there.
• It what is likely to me the first of many disturbing secrets about the Bush Administration that will leak to the public in the coming years, it turns out that Donald Rumsfeld and the Department of Defense gave the military clandestine orders to conduct raids in various countries in the Middle East.
• MGM is going to begin posting entire movies on YouTube, meaning there is no longer any excuse not to see Barbershop.
• The BBC headline, "The race to save one of the world's rarest creatures" is referring to Ethiopian wolves, not people.
• The 2008 Presidential Election saw a record number of votes cast, but not voter turnout.
• Poland celebrated its 90th Independence Day on Saturday with a parade on a dead-end street.
• Circuit City filed for bankruptcy.
• John McCain will appear on The Tonight Show on Tuesday.

When he addressed the Republican Jewish Convention on a campaign stop through Washington last year, Rudy Giuliani drew attention to a sea change that many believe is agitating the Jewish community. "A lot of you are the first Republicans in your families," he declared, pointing his finger at the audience. "Right? Am I right?" Smiling and raising his arms in a gentle oy vey iz mir gesture, he drew attention to his own journey from Democrat to Independent to Republican. At the time, he and Hilary Clinton were the candidates with the most support in the Jewish community, and Giuliani got plenty of wry laughs from the choir.

At the time it seemed the Republican Jews had a lot to be happy about. The Republican share of the Jewish vote has increased steadily since Ronald Regan's presidency. In 1992, 11 percent of Jews voted Republican. In 1996, 16 percent. The numbers rose to 23 percent in 2004, and the latest poll by the American Jewish Committee, released last month, shows McCain holding at 30 percent.

That's still one vote for every two Obama picks up, at 57 percent, but it's a definite dent in comparison to John Kerry's 69 percent this time four years ago (he won the undecideds to take 77 percent of the final Jewish vote). If those numbers hold, they will mark a huge swing in the Jewish vote, which has reliably delivered its 4 percent of the total vote to Democrats each election. Across election cycles, exit polls have repeatedly confirmed an average of 80 to 90 percent Democratic support within the Jewish community. Demographers have shown the Jewish tendency to vote blue equals that of blacks, Hispanics and the unemployed. With their high proportion of registered voters, the group is small but always courted in elections.

While Orthodox Jews have an accepted tendency towards conservatism, political or otherwise, they only make up 8.9 percent of the Jewish electorate. (This number is lower than the proportion of Orthodox in the Jewish community since a larger share of of Orthodox are under the age of 18.) A 1997 study by the American Association for Public Opinion Research, "American Liberalism: Unraveling the Strands," showed that the majority of Jews are more likely than non-Jews to identify as liberals (47 percent vs. 28 percent).

This liberality is followed through in almost all issue areas--including, your grandma will no doubt be delighted to know, a firm "commitment to permissive social codes, sexual codes in particular." Jews are especially liberal when it comes to our support of abortion rights and aversion to school prayer. However, the gap between Jews and non-Jews begins to pale on issues of equal rights for women and blacks and opposition to capital punishment. On these civil liberties issues, only 5 percent more Jews identify as liberal than non-Jews, a very narrow margin of error for a much vaunted-Jewish liberalism.

Obviously but understandably, Jews are particularly concerned about Israel's safety and the threat of Islamic fascism. They have been dismayed by Barack Obama's perceived over-eagerness to talk with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who has made destructive comments about the Jewish State. "When it comes to issues of national security, Israel's security, there's no margin for error," said Suzanne Kurtz, press secretary for the Republican Jewish Coalition. The organization ran a series of controversial ads that questioned Obama's record and intentions, asking and answering their own question: "Concerned about Barack Obama? You should be." "Republicans are seen as having a muscular foreign policy, not a philosophy like Obama who'll sit down unconditionally [with backers of terrorism]," Kurtz insisted.

This line of thinking has a prominent advocate in Jewish Republican convert Senator Joe Lieberman. Lieberman votes with the Democrats in the Senate on many issues. But his support of the Iraq War aligns him with the Republican Party.

It also has swayed voters like Robert Mouro, 38, who I found waving a McCain-Palin placard at the protest against Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in New York last October. Mouro voted for Michael Dukakis in 1988, and twice for Bill Clinton; in his opinion, he's stayed in place while the Democratic Party has left him. "I'm a perfect example of a neocon," he explained. "I'm what you heard about. Socially I'm a liberal, but national security is more important. The War on Islamic fascism began November 4, 1979 [the date of the Iranian hostage crisis]."

The National Jewish Democratic Committee refutes the notion that McCain's proposed policy towards Iran is any different from Obama's. "Iran is part of a larger issue which the right-wing has fostered about Obama, an aura of somehow this guy is not trustworthy," said Ira Forman, executive director. The NJDC believes it's not McCain's hawkishness, but his perceived status as a moderate Republican that is the biggest threat to Democratic hopes for the Jewish vote.

This is worrying news for those who believe that the Democratic platform best speaks to Jewish voters, but comforting for those who worry that foreign policy will decide the Jewish vote. Although the Jewish community, as with all small groups, is notoriously hard to poll, the latest numbers from J-Street, the progressive Jewish lobbying group, show that 55 percent of respondents chose the economy as one of the two issues that would most influence their presidential and congressional vote in November. Thirty-three percent chose the war in Iraq. Health care and national security tied at 21 percent, and Israel came seventh on the list at 8 percent.

Something else to bear in mind is that politics is always in flux, and voters can blush from red to blue just as easily as the other way around. Despite traditional expectations of its 21,000 Jews, Nassau County on Long Island has traditionally been a Republican base: "When a Republican dies and goes to heaven it looks a lot like Nassau County," said the late president Ronald Reagan. But this month, Democratic registration in the county took the lead with 328,604 to the Republican 328,477. Though a small margin, the Democrats have closed a nearly 100,000-vote gap since 1970. It goes to show that voting patterns never stand still; the Republican Jewish vote is growing, but perhaps more in visibility than in numbers.

Cal Thomas at the Washington Times has delved into the illustrious pages of dictionary.com to show us why an audio clip of Obama might be the smoking gun that proves he may as well be a socialist:


OK, Cal, I've got the Internet--shall we consider what dictionary.com says about the word 'fascism' then?  Fascism "appeals to strident nationalism" and "promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and 'impure' people within his own nation."  It "does not demand state ownership of the means of production, nor is fascism committed to the achievement of economic equality."  And lastly, "fascists are usually described as right-wing."  While this is the proper definition, it can also refer to "governments or individuals that profess racism and that act in an arbitrary, high-handed manner." 

So, is it now time for the Obama campaign to roll out charges of fascism against the McCain camp?   McCain, who asks on the stump, "Who is the real Barack Obama?"   Whose operatives emphasize his foreign-sounding name and send out race-baiting robocalls as they gallivant around the nation intimidating voters by placing their commitment to fervent nationalism--to "Country First"--on the line?  An avowedly right-wing party, that has acted arbitrarily and high-handed by almost any measure?  McCain has made clear that economic equality is nothing he's committed to.  And think about this: fascist leaders are usually military men, too.  Barack Obama has never served in the military.  John McCain has.  Ergo, McCain has more in common with fascists than does Barack Obama.  

See how this logic works?  It's childish, it's loony and most of all it's false.  Of course John McCain isn't a fascist, even if he has stooped pretty low in the course of this campaign.  The drift toward partisan extremism is conjecture on the part of Obama detractors who imagine he would set the country on a Marxist course.  The drift toward right-wing extremism however, is on display in the here-and-now, evidenced in the parameters of argument set by some conservatives.  It isn't just liberals who will rejoice if Obama wins the election.  Sensible conservatives, one imagines, will be glad to see this aspect of their movement purged by a rejection of the McCain-Palin ticket, and a party once characterized by its distaste for crackpots, cranks and demagogues given the chance to restore its integrity.

We are at an historic crossroads.  Any environmental expert will tell you that if we do not reverse the trend of our carbon emissions within 15 years, we risk doing irreparable damage to our planet.   Given that it will take 10 years for any substantive change to come to fruition, the man who occupies the oval office for the next two terms is in the unique position to leave behind an undeniable environmental legacy.  Fifty years from now this coming administration will be viewed either as environmental heroes, or catastrophic failures.  From a global environmental perspective, November 2nd 2008 may be remembered as the most important day in the history of the planet.

When I first conceived this article, it was my intention to put aside my liberal bias and write an objective analysis of the two presidential candidates’ environmental platforms.  That was until I had the unfortunate displeasure of reading McCain’s Lexington Project.

It is important to understand that there is no surefire solution to the energy crisis.  Like any stock portfolio, the key to success is diversification.  Both campaigns have a grasp on this concept, with neither betting the future on any one specific technology or policy and both proposing an immediate price onMe with Jason Grumet at the Cleantech Forum in Washington DC.: Mr. Grumet provided insight into how policies can aid in the transition to a green economy. carbon emissions.  Given the uncertainty of the industry, it is difficult to suggest that either candidate will provide the indisputable solution to the energy crisis.

That being said, the Obama team has gone the furthest in illustrating the inextricable connection between the environment and the economy.  The comprehensive 11 page proposal coming out of the Obama camp provides calculated actions the government can take to alleviate our dependence on foreign oil without pillaging our countries natural resources, all while creating five million new “green collar” jobs.  McCain, on the other hand, seems like he asked some kid in the halls of an elementary school for help with his proposal.  I suggest you read it next time you are in an elevator, stopped at a red light, or waiting for your Facebook page to refresh.  

Included in the flimsy two and a half page proposal is the implication that one solution to our transportation energy crisis is offering “A $300 million prize to improve battery technology for full commercial development of plug-in hybrid and fully electric automobiles.”  This type of suggestion comes from a man who either A) hasn’t thought critically about a viable solution to the energy crisis or B) wants to sound like he’s making an effort without jeopardizing his relationship with Big Oil.  This proposal is like telling a poor, inner city youth that if he goes to college and gets his degree he’ll be guaranteed a $30,000 a year job when he graduates, but neglecting to provide him with scholarships, loans, or any other financial support for his education.

Offering a $300 million dollar “prize” brazenly ignores the most difficult challenge to the renewable energy movement: capital investment.  There is little doubt that the transition to a green economy cannot happen without an open dialogue between policymakers, laborers, and the private sector.  The Cleantech Group recently brought together 500 of the most influential cleantech entrepreneurs and venture capitalists at the Cleantech Forum in Washington DC.  Jason Grumet, Obama’s lead energy and environmental advisor was on hand for a riveting panel discussion.  His presence was as much to provide industry trendsetters with an overview of Obama’s policy strategies as it was to gain feedback from the men and women who will be shaping the industry in the private sector.  

What was missing from this panel was any representation from the McCain camp (despite a personal invitation), an abscence as glaring as the one in the lower Manhattan skyline.  Somehow the only person from the republican camp who could find the time to attend the preeminent North American cleantech conference, which was in Washington DC, was Hank Habicht, energy representative to the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations.  Mr. Habicht likened his experience in that role to “a javelin team captain who had been elected to receive.”

The problem, or at least one of them, is infrastructural, and that road begins in Washington and ends in Detroit.  Many people forget that the success of the American automobile industry could not have been made possible without the infrastructural foundation built by the American government.  Without roads, nobody would buy cars.  Similarly, without direct government investment in a clean energy economy, supported by policy that alleviates some of the challenges stemming from the capitally intensive nature of the technology, we are stuck in a “chicken or the egg” scenario.

Me with every member of the McCain Energy Team: who decided to attend the preeminent North American Cleantech conference while it was in their backyard. They provided insight into the value McCain puts on the environment.John McCain points out that American automakers have committed to shift their product lines to 50% Flex Fuel vehicles by 2012. His plan “calls on automakers to make a more rapid and complete switch to FFVs.”  There is no mention of what policies he will enact to do this, what types of financial support the government will give to assist with the necessary capital investment, who will train these workers to manufacture these new technologies, or most importantly, where these new cars will be filling their tanks.  McCain does offer some back end incentives in the form of a $5,000 credit to automakers for each zero emission car sold, but without significant investment in R&D or definitive distribution channels for alternative fuel, I don’t see many of these credits being issued.  Furthermore, the jump from current emissions to zero emissions is quite optimistic, and one wonders if he is aware that FFV fuels, while they do drastically cut emissions, are not in fact carbon neutral.

Obama proposes a “strategic investment of $150 billion over 10 years to accelerate the commercialization of plug‐in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy, encourage energy efficiency, invest in low emissions coal plants, advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure… [and invest in] America's highly‐skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world.”  

Beyond financial and political investment in infrastructure, the next administration must focus on policy that drives demand.  American car manufacturers have made amazing leaps in technology over the past fifty years, but almost all of that innovation has been in the realm of maximizing engine power; had these breakthroughs been made in the realm of maximizing efficiency, chances are we’d all be driving 150 MPG vehicles.  

No one can blame Ford or GM for focusing on projects like the Mustang or the Corvette decades before the word green implied anything other than a color.  R&D budgetary expenditures and output objectives from the 50’s through the 80’s were based on consumer preferences.  People wanted big, powerful cars, and Detroit was happy to help.  In the last few years the skyrocketing price of oil has created a new, indisputable era of automobile demand, but there is still room for policy to help drive consumer preferences.  

Obama is offering a $7,000 tax credit to consumers for the purchase of advanced technology vehicles, as well as a credit to subsidize clean engine conversions.  His plan also establishes a guaranteed initial revenue stream to American automakers by enacting a one year plan to convert the entire White House fleet to plug in hybrids, and half of all government vehicles to plug-in hybrid or 100% electric by 2012.  I’ve sent McCain my Economics 101 notes on supply and demand.  I’ll let you know if I hear anything.  

While this article has focused on infrastructure and auto transportation solutions, the complexity of environmental policy is so vast that it cannot conceivably be summed up within the confines of this column.  We need decisive action across the board on energy efficiency, smart grids, sustainable communities, green building, utility energy mix incentives, wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, geosolar, cogeneration, waste management, waste energy, carbon pricing, clean coal, natural gas, maximizing efficiency from conventional energy, domestic drilling, foreign oil policy, biofuels, flex fuels, electric cars, green collar training, greenhouse gas emissions, cap and trade, water management, energy speculation, short term energy pricing relief, and more.  I encourage you to read both plans, and make an educated decision for yourselves.  

McCain – Palin: The Lexington Project

Obama – Biden: New Energy For America

Jason Grumet, lead energy and environmental advisor to Barack Obama, knows that the shift to a green economy cannot be done alone.  “The American people need to communicate the value of job creation.  Obama has said that he can create 5 million jobs, but 5 million is a crazy big number.  Write a letter to the editor, or to local policymakers, explaining how we can create 14 jobs.”  

For years a loud minority has been scraping and clawing to build out the cleantech education strategy at Babson College.  In the past three years that loud minority has grown to a deafening majority, and within the last year alone the school has added an Environmental Entrepreneurship class, a Green Consulting program, and created a Cleantech Entrepreneur in Residence position on the Board of Overseers.  These successes in cleantech management education need to partnered with commitments by trade schools, community colleges, and even private sector manufacturing organizations to develop the skilled green collar labor force that will be the foundation of our new economy.

Obama’s roots are in community organizing; with him and his 500 person energy staff working from the top down, and everyone else working up from the bottom, hopefully we can meet somewhere in the middle, at the crossroads of economy and ecology.

Damn was that town hall thing hard to sit through.

First of all, it was the second debate in a row in which Senator McCain bragged about America being the best "importer" in the world. Um... that's not a good thing, sir. That means you owe people money.  Which I guess you don't have to worry about when your wife has a few hundred million in the bank. 

Second, Mr. McCain, in order to get your glorious "preconditions" before you sit down with people ... you need to actually sit down with people!!!!

Third, please, please, pleeeeeeeaze stop saying "my friends."  Apparently you didn't swallow enough of the Bill Romanowski memory aid pills he sold you.  You just said we were friends four seconds ago.  We get it.  You're our pal.

And yes yes yes yes yes, you are a war hero.  And I commend you for the sacrifice you've made for the country.  However, what I won't give you potential presidential props for is being a prisoner of war. Sorry, but there is NOTHING about being a POW that qualifies one to be commander in chief.  Bottom line: ANYONE can be a POW.  All you have to do is be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Sorry again, but no points for having bad luck.  I'm not going to vote for the person who has been stuck in traffic the most hours either.  It's irrelevant.

In 1970, this was fashionable.By the way, in 1970 I was in first grade and had an exhibit of my clay sculptures at the local public library.  I had a red elephant and a blue walrus that everyone marveled at and an ostrich with a pipe cleaner neck and --  What I'm trying to say is WHO THE HELL CARES WHAT HAPPENED IN 1970?!?!?  In 1970 Paul McCartney released "Let it Be" - now he kinda sucks.  What IS important is how people evolve.  It appeared that John McCain WAS evolving... until 2001 when he went back to being a Cro-Magnon man.  If he and Ms.Palin get elected, America might as well be confined to a tiger cage for the next four years.    

Oh, one last point for the racist voter out there: Why not just look at Obama as being half white (which he is) instead of all black (which he isn't)? 

And for you Alaskan Jews out there: please remember to spay and neuter your wolves so there doesn't have to be any more aerial hunting of 'em.

Brian Frazer, author of Hyperchondriac, is guest blogging on Jewcy, and he's here all week.  Stay tuned.

 

Election 2000: Important enough for a movie?If there is one thing that unites all media coverage of the current campaign, as well most of our breathless analysis and punditry, it is this: The 2008 election is the most important in a generation, perhaps in history. 

Every election I can remember has been the most important in my lifetime.  Either presidential selections are getting more and more important with the passage of time, or a great many of us tend to lose perspective every four years. 

All presidential elections are important, of course, and this one is no different.  The next occupant of the White House will determine the direction of our foreign and domestic policy...but they all do that.  He will choose one or two new Supreme Court justices.  But they all do that, too. 

Establishing the unique, crucial importance of this election seems particularly important to the McCain campaign message.  Elect Obama, we are told, and catastrophe will befall the United States.  Al Qaeda will go on a rampage.  Putin and Iran will be unstoppable.  Your children will be in grave danger (if you love them, you'll vote McCain!). 

McCain appears to think that his only route to victory is making people believe that the fate of the earth lies in the balance.  A skeptic might suggest that scaring the bejeebus out of everyone is hardly presidential...but nobody really likes skeptics anyway.

There is good reason to believe that this election might not be as decisive as our candidates and hyperbolic media would have us believe.  First of all, from the looks of things, the next president is in real danger of being a one-termer.  Rarely do voters look kindly upon presidents who preside over tough economic times (FDR is the lone exception), and all indications are that the next few years will be somewhat grim. The next president is also going to be handed a few very difficult dilemmas by his incompetent predecessor.  The violence has gone into remission in Iraq, but the patient is hardly cured; Afghanistan and Pakistan teeter on the edge of chaos; Dancing with the Stars is one of our most popular TV shows.  Why anyone would want to be president right now, I have no idea.

And second, the threats facing the United States in 2008 are hardly more dangerous than those from years past.  Sure, al Qaeda still exists, and remains a problem.  But through good investigative work and international information sharing, our intelligence services have gained the upper hand in our struggle with Osama and the boys.  Terrorists will always be able to kill people, but they cannot change our society.  Only we can do that.

Both campaigns seem ignorant of one of the most important facts about current world politics:  War seems to be disappearing from the planet.  As a number of political scientists have been proclaiming for years, the incidence and intensity of all kinds of wars - interstate, civil, ethnic conflicts, etc. - are at historically low levels, and still declining.  Entire continents are experiencing their greatest stretch of peaceful relations.  Europe, South America, North America, Australia, and most of Asia are virtually war-free.  Even in Africa conflict levels are lower than at any time in history.  I go into more detail about this in the book.

In such a climate, countries are safe.  The strongest is the safest.

So I am not convinced this election is actually that important.  The truth is that we don't know how important any election is until the administration is over.  As it turns out, those who told us that Bush vs. Gore was the most important election of our lifetimes were probably right.  At the time, though, who knew?

Christopher Fettweis, author of Losing Hurts Twice As Bad, is guest blogging on Jewcy, and he'll be here all week.  Stay tuned. 

On Friday night, our two candidates will hold a debate on foreign policy.  Most of the questions are fairly predictable; the responses, even more so.  And one other thing is certain: If our founding fathers were in the audience, they would be uniformly horrified at what they heard.  Both candidates will likely map out grand strategic visions that are radically different from that which served the nation quite well over its first 150 years.

A moment's consideration of their views might be in order as the next administration considers how best to move the country forward out of the morass of Iraq.

Not what Washington had in mind: Presidential candidate Barack Obama meets with Gordon Brown, prime minister of former colonizer Great BritainOn most matters, the United States worships Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams and their compatriots as passionately as the Romans did Romulus and Remus, and it still seeks their wisdom on a wide variety of subjects, from constitutional questions to political theory to religion.  The hagiography, however, stops at the water's edge.  The founding fathers had quite clear views about grand strategy, but for some reason their thoughts seem to be all but disregarded by most modern strategists.  When it comes to domestic policy, the word of the founders is gospel; in foreign policy, it is quaint.

In fact, grand strategy was one of the very few issues on which the founding fathers spoke with virtually one voice.  With varying degrees of enthusiasm (and for different reasons), these men felt that the United States ought not squander the blessings of geography.  They consistently and forcefully counseled their new nation to restrain itself.  Washington was the most prominent advocate, arguing in his Farewell Address that "nothing is more essential" for the new nation "than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded."  His "great rule" of strategy was that the United States ought to extend its commercial relations with foreign nations, but have with them "as little political connection as possible."

All of his colleagues, even those who were longstanding rivals on almost everything else, basically agreed with this sentiment.  Alexander Hamilton advised Washington that "America's predisposition against involvement in Old World affairs" ought to be a "general principle of policy;" Thomas Jefferson was "for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment."  In his 1776 pamphlet Common Sense, Thomas Paine wrote that although "Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part of it.  It is the true interest of America to steer clear of European contentions."  John Adams argued that "we should separate ourselves, as far as possible and for as long as possible, from all European politics and wars."  This recommendation was heeded by his son, President John Quincy Adams, who in 1821 issued his famous and eloquent warning against going abroad in search of monsters to destroy. 

Today's neoconservatives tell us that the founders didn't really mean what they said, and that these men were actually pragmatists who did not counsel a course separate from the rest of the world.  Robert Kagan in particular, who is one of McCain's major foreign policy advisors, does an admirable job of constructing and then knocking down the straw man of an isolationist United States.  It is however no great insight to argue that the United States always had a foreign policy, which is essentially what he does.  Policymakers have always carried out robust debates over the proper course of action, and intervened in the affairs of other countries whenever it seemed wise to do so.  The United States was never isolationist, and virtually no strategist today thinks it ought to be.

These modern re-interpretations of the history of U.S. foreign policy cannot wash away the obvious fact that for most of its existence, the United States defined threats, interests and opportunities quite narrowly, and maintained appropriately small militaries with which to address them.  The affairs of the Old World in particular held little more than a passing interest to U.S. strategists, who felt that the oceans provided adequate buffer for most of the ills of the world.  It was restraint, not isolationism, that dominated the grand strategy of this country for its first hundred and fifty years.  During that time, the nation experienced steady economic growth and was unmolested by outside forces, eventually rising to become the strongest of the world's great powers.  Strategic restraint seemed to serve the young nation quite well.  It would likely do so again.

After the Second World War, a series of decisions were made to alter the traditional strategic approach, and the United States has followed an activist, internationalist path since.  Each post-war administration eschewed the advice of the founders, and by the beginning of the twenty-first century internationalism had become imbedded in the national strategic conventional wisdom.  The need for such activism is rarely even examined, much less seriously challenged.   

The wisest grand strategy spends the least in order to gain the most; it minimizes costs and maximizes benefits.  Activism is justified therefore only when there is clear necessity.  America ought not be heavily involved abroad merely because it can, but only when it must (or, to the idealist, when it should).  The default option for our leaders ought to be to not intervene in the affairs of others, and to lead by example, not by imposition. 

We would all be better off if the winner in November followed a strategy of strategic restraint.

One can hope that generalized discontent with the strategy of the current administration will lead to a re-examination of the proper role of the United States in the world.  The public may indeed be a bit more open to restraint, now that they have seen the consequences of its opposite.  Like an alcoholic, sometimes a nation must hit rock bottom before it sees the need to make drastic changes.  To the vast majority of the American people, Iraq looks like rock bottom.

One can hope the debate would start such a conversation. 

One can hope for a lot of things, I suppose.

Christopher Fettweis, author of Losing Hurts Twice As Bad, is guest blogging on Jewcy, and he'll be here all week.  Stay tuned. 

It is difficult, if not impossible, to have a coherent discussion of foreign affairs during an election year.  As I argue in my new book, Losing Hurts Twice as Bad:  The Four Stages to Moving Beyond Iraq, politics is the eternal enemy of strategy.  National interest always takes a back seat to partisan political interests until campaigns come to an end.

Unfortunately, world events always refuse to wait for our elections to be over.  How rude.

Yosemite Sam: the ideal candidateGenerally speaking, electoral pressures encourage candidates toward the irresponsible.  Fearful of looking weak, candidates struggle to out-macho each other at every turn and prove to the electorate that they are the one most able to keep the country safe.  Wisdom and prudence simply do not garner as do many votes as do belligerence and bombast.  Most Americans, it often seems, would rather vote for Yosemite Sam than George Kennan.

We certainly see this dynamic at work in this election cycle.  Last month, a remote, rather inconsequential conflict in the Caucasus was elevated by both campaigns into a test of Western mettle against the re-arming Russian bear.  Never mind that there are no U.S. interests whatsoever at stake in South Ossetia and Abkhazia; if the presidential candidates are to be believed, the fate of the world lies in the balance.

The same dynamic will unfold this week as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran comes to New York to speak at the United Nations.  His visit has provided a good opportunity for hawks to remind us all of how much danger we are in from the possibility of an Iranian nuclear bomb.  Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute tells us that Ahmadinejad is in love with death.  A bipartisan group of foreign policy notables reminds us that "everyone needs to worry about Iran."  Sarah Palin may have been the first candidate to jump on board the be-very-afraid bandwagon, arguing that Ahmadinejad "must be stopped," but she will not be the last.

It may prove very difficult for the United States to resist the temptation to elevate the backwards, medieval Iranian regime into our next enemy du jour.  Iran may be the main state sponsor of terrorism in today's world, and its government certainly continues to espouse a rather extreme form of Islam, but it need not be a threat to the interests of the United States.  The Iranian economy is a basket case; its military, little better.  The Islamic Republic may be able to stave off collapse for as long as petrodollars keep flowing in, but they will not be able to mount anything resembling a serious challenge to U.S. power.  They are important only to the extent that we make them so.  Wise policy, therefore, would ignore them, which we could begin to do once we got out of Iraq.

Instead there will be serious pressures from right-wing circles in the United States in coming months and years for military action to prevent the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons.  Tehran has been "six months away" from an atom bomb since I was in junior high; nevertheless, today there is reason to believe that they may actually be drawing fairly close.  Cooler heads may suggest that such a move may well be inevitable, and that the United States would do better to try to determine how it will deal with, rather than prevent the emergence of, a nuclear Iran.  Not only are the military options unlikely to work, they are also unnecessary. 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: He ever fails to communicate.One of the great truths in international politics is that small countries and big countries never really understand one another.  The weak cannot ever fully trust the strong, since one mistake can lead to the destruction of their country; the strong, on the other hand, don't understand the level of paranoia that their overwhelming power creates in the weak.  It is only by keeping this in mind can we comprehend the dynamics of the relationship between Iran and the United States.

Iran has seen its neighbors to the east and west attacked and quickly conquered.  It has made a series of diplomatic overtures, which were apparently answered with its inclusion on the "axis of evil."  Its economy is in shambles, with most sectors centrally controlled and remarkably inefficient.  About ninety percent of its population receives its income from the state.  Both unemployment and inflation rates are in the double digits.  Iranian military spending rose dramatically following the U.S. attack on Iraq, but it still is only around $10 billion per year.  The United States, by comparison, spends around $750 billion, once the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan are factored in.  Any war between the two would last about a half hour, and both sides know it.  Perhaps it is little wonder, then, that Tehran has decided to seek the ultimate equalizer, nuclear weapons.

The United States sees in Iran an expansionist, irrational Islamic fundamentalist state that is actively trying to dominate the Persian Gulf.  Its President is an old-school populist demagogue, fond of denying both the Holocaust and the existence of homosexuals in his country.  They support terrorist groups in Lebanon and Israel, and actively work to undermine Iraqi democracy (and kill U.S. troops).  These kinds of actions are the mark of an enemy, a state certainly not to be trusted with nuclear weapons because unlike rational states, there is no guarantee that Iran can be deterred.

However, as my book explains, those foreign policy analysts who call themselves "realists" see no reason to believe that that the Iranians will prove to be much different from any other state.  The theocrats in Iran have the same main priority as any other ruling group:  self-preservation.  Never before in the history of the world has any country committed suicide.  No leader has ever worked his or her way up the ladder of government to achieve the top position only to kill himself and his countrymen.  Gross miscalculation has of course occurred - Saddam Hussein comes to mind - never but intentional national suicide.  Nuclear weapons tend to concentrate the mind, virtually eliminating the possibility of miscalculation.  Leaders know that if they use these weapons, they will be destroyed in an overwhelming response.  Any Iranian use of nuclear weapons would be suicidal, not accidental.  And entirely unprecedented.

Were they to get a nuclear weapon, the leaders of Iran would not launch it against Israel unless they were prepared to see their rule, and their desire for a Shi'ite power bloc, come to an end.  Giving a bomb to Hezbollah or Hamas would be the functional equivalent of using it, because since nuclear explosions leave radiation "signatures" that can be traced back to the point of their origin.  There would be no possibility, therefore, to deny how these groups got their bombs, and Tehran (or at least the regime) would still face retaliation.  Realism therefore counsels that even theocrats would act rationally with the ultimate weapon, no matter how much bluster emerges from Tehran.  What Iran does is far more important than what their clownish president says.  And overall, Iran - like every country - tends to act in accordance with its national interests.  Destruction of the state is certainly not one of those interests.

But we are getting ahead of ourselves.  Iranian nuclear weapons are not inevitable.  In fact, if we were truly interested in seeing their program shut down, we would get our troops out of Iraq post haste.  Our presence in Iraq ironically makes an Iranian bomb more likely.  Defense planners in Iran make the reasonable calculation that the only thing that could prevent them from meeting the same fate as their neighbors is a nuclear deterrent.  It is entirely rational that they would want one, and it would be the goal of any Iranian regime, whether it be a democracy or theocracy, as long as the threat posed by the United States seems to be so high. 

We will probably have to wait until this election is over to have a rational discussion of foreign policy.  Until then, we can hope that the candidates will not feel the need to follow through on their ridiculous campaign statements once they get into office.  The willingness to flip-flop away from irresponsibility is no vice.

Christopher Fettweis, author of Losing Hurts Twice As Bad, is guest blogging on Jewcy, and he'll be here all week.  Stay tuned. 

So I was watching Senator Joe Lieberman on television at the Republican convention the first week of September going on and on about how much he deeply admires not only John McCain but also Sara Palin.  I began to wonder, "For this my ancestors suffered and died?"

Jews and Republicans: Strange bedfellows? Maybe not.I'm the child of a Holocaust survivor and I'm named after my grandpa who perished in Auschwitz.  My grandpa never got to hang out with the ruling elite of Germany.  So maybe Joe Lieberman doing high-fives with Cindy McCain, Sara Palin, the Bush family, and Obama's distant cousin Dick Cheney (from the Kansas mishpachah of Obama's mom) should be viewed as a blessed event for my tribe.

But as Gilda Radner used to say after her rant on what's the big fuss about saving Soviet Jewelry, "NEVER MIND!"

Here are 3 reasons why I'd rather Senator Lieberman (and other Jews) take a second look at McCain and Palin before getting deeper into bed with them: 

1) WE JEWS LIKE TO WRESTLE WITH TORAH, NOT TO ACCEPT IT BLINDLY.  Even our name Yisra-El means to wrestle with the Holy One.  So when John McCain said quickly last year that "America is a Christian nation," did that make you wonder about how much he wrestles with issues of faith and practice?  Or when he said last month to Pastor Rick Warren that what it means to be a Christian is not about following Jesus in repairing the world or confronting the powerful, but rather (in McCain's quick answer that got huge applause), "It means I'm saved and I'm redeemed."  Did that feel like a very comforting answer to those of us who seek redemption through teshuvah, tikkun olam, and constant soul-searching?

2) WE JEWS DON'T TEND TO VOTE FOR BOOK BANNERS OR PEOPLE WHO FIRE LIBRARIANS WHO OPPOSE BOOK BANNING.  I really hope they get Secret Service protection for Anne Kilkenny and the fired librarian from Palin's hometown who both got put in the irreversible "banished forever" file because they weren't open to book banning.  I'm sure Sara Palin has many great qualities, but I certainly don't want to see someone a heartbeat from the presidency who views everything in such black-or-white, all-or-nothing absolutes.  I know that John Kerry lost a lot of votes in 2004 when George W. Bush called him a "nuanced thinker" and Bush reassured the nation that "I don't do nuance."  But we Jews have survived for thousands of years by embracing the fact that Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai are both correct and that in the nuanced tension between clashing views we find holiness and sparks of the Divine.

3) WE JEWS HAVE PLENTY OF POWERFUL INSIDERS WHO APPRECIATE US, SO LET'S NOT MINGLE TOO MUCH IN PLACES WHERE THEY ONLY WANT TO CONVERT US.   The key to Jewish survival has always been the supportive organizations we've created in every community where we've lived and the strong alliances we built with those who appreciated us as outsiders who are different and yet worthy of being treated with justice and kindness.  Rather than pretending we are in love with those who desperately want us to convert to their one-and-only way, we do much better when we create new alternative circles that help repair the broken world.  

For example, when I was researching my new book FITTING IN IS OVERRATED: The Survival Guide for Anyone Who Has Ever Felt Like an Outsider, I discovered a wonderful true story about a young woman named Bettye Goldstein who was excluded from all the cliques at Central High in Peoria because she was perceived as "too bookish, too Jewish, too honest."  So, young Bettye began to write articles and books on how to be a smart woman and find both men and women who would honor your strengths.  Then, under her married name of Betty Friedan, she began to form thousands of small consciousness-raising groups where women could find their voice and expand their support systems.  Like little havurot (groups of friends studying together and supporting one another through good times and rough times), these consciousness-raising groups changed the world enormously in the past 40 years.  But this change occurred not by trying to fit in with those who were out to turn back time to the way things were.  The change occurred by creating new supportive groups and friendships where it was finally ok to be bookish, Jewish, and honest.

Question:  What do you think?  Is it better to be different and create alternative circles of support and empowerment?  Or is it better to get invited to hang out with the currently powerful insiders and hope they will overlook the fact that you represent everything they detest?    For more on this topic, log onto www.fittinginisoverrated.com.

Dr. Leonard Felder, author of Fitting in Is Overrated, is guest blogging on Jewcy, and he'll be here all week. Stay tuned.

Presidential Matzo: dry, bland, empty caloriesRemember last winter's Huckabee Christmas message with the "hidden" cross? Now that it’s Passover, it's time for the remaining presidential candidates to release statements about what the holiday means to them.

• Hillary explains that she's moved by the spirit of social justice.
• Barack is inspired by the educational sensibilities of the seder.
• Meanwhile, John McCain flexes his Zionist muscles, reminding us that three Israeli soliders, Gilad Shalit, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev cannot effectively celebrate the holiday of redemption when they remain in captivity.

The New York Times decodes each candidate’s statement, labeling Clinton’s message “liberal,” Obama’s “multicultural,” and McCain’s as “Zionist.”

But the statements themselves have little-to-no-substance. The candidates are just trying to cover their bases, to demonstrate that they care about their Jewish constituency, and though it’s commonly accepted as empty rhetoric, (the Times reminds us that the statements are released mainly “because there’s a risk of giving offense to some group or other if they don’t.”) we still go through the motions of deconstructing each statement and trying to deduce some substance from within the fluff.

Does anyone really think that a 200 word statement is a good indication of how invested any candidate is in the Jewish community? Does it really make any sense to try to glean something from these press releases when they were certainly written by staffers, and are accompanied by a flurry of other statements on everything from Earth Day to Equal Pay Day? If we really want to know how these candidates feel about Jews and the issues that are important to most Jews today, we should be examining voting records, and exploring each candidate's connection to the Jewish community. Detailed analyses of Passover statements is like the second seder: It might be fun, but it’s not covering any new ground.

Both the American Jewish Committee and The National Jewish Democratic council issued statements criticizing John McCain's recent remarks about non-Christians and the presidency. As well they should have.

McCain said in a recent interview:

I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles ... personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith," McCain said. "But that doesn't mean that I'm sure that someone who is Muslim would not make a good president.

I've never had a problem with John McCain's age. (But maybe that’s just because at 35, I’m apparently already too out of touch to know how to text my vote in to a news network after a debate. I ruined a good 45 minutes trying to thumb in my McCain vote a few weeks ago.) He does, however, have a minor knack for making gaffs that seem particularly, what. . .out of touch. Perhaps one could take some solace in the notion that this recent whoops is evidence of McCain's unease in pandering to Evangelicals?

I don't believe the man is particularly prejudiced against non-Christians, but a statement like that can't go unchallenged. As a spokesman for the American Jewish Committee said, "To argue that America is a Christian nation, or that persons of a particular faith should by reason of their faith not seek high office, puts the very character of our country at stake."

McCain has since tried to quell the noise. And I hate to say it, but his efforts at clarifying his intitial remarks seem, once again, off:

It's almost Talmudic. We are a nation that was based on Judeo-Christian values. That means respect for all of human rights and dignity. That's my principle values and ideas, and that's what I think motivated our founding fathers.

There's a sort of Clintonesqe disregard for the substantive at work here.

And by the way - "It's almost Talmudic"? He's gone from the frying pan into the fryer. Do the truthers and company need any more evidence of the insidious hand of the evil Jewish lobby? I can hear the shrill mob now: "John McCain said the U.S. is a Talmudic nation!"