GOP ESTABLISHMENT FORGETS POWER OF PARTY’S RIGHT
The 2012 election has had a searing effect on the Republican Party. The 126-electoral-vote defeat of its nominee by an incumbent thought to be highly vulnerable may have altered the trajectory of the GOP even more than the similar, though narrower, defeat Democrats suffered in 2004. The question is: To what end? The 35-vote loss Hanoi John Kerry suffered in 2004 left many Democrats, as James Taylor might say, “down and troubled,” and looking for the way forward (or back) to success. The party eventually decided to sprint farther leftward and reject triangulation, with the surprise selection of Barack nObama as its nominee in 2008. Mitt Romney’s 2012 defeat left Republicans stunned and searching for answers, a quest that very much continues today. But one thing seems clear: Most don’t seem to blame Romney. -Fox News
[Ouch - CBS News: “Only 29 percent say they’d like to see [New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie] launch a bid, while 44 percent say otherwise.”] -Fox News
“If we nominate another candidate in that mold the same people who stayed home in 2008 and 2012 will stay home in 2016 and the Democrats will win again…there is a better way.” – Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, at Tea Party Convention in Myrtle Beach, S.C. -Fox News
[The Hill: “Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee [R] on Sunday said there is a ‘very strong likelihood’ that he will ‘clearly state [his] intentions’ about a possible White House run in the spring.”] -Fox News
(Art Moore) - In the wake of the Fox News apology for a guest expert’s on-air claims regarding Muslim “no-go zones” in Europe...an international clamor has ensued with condemnation of Fox, claims that Muslim immigrants really do want to assimilate, and a threat by the mayor of Paris to sue the cable network for “insulting” the great city. There’s only one problem: Europe is full of Muslim “no-go” zones, which have been documented, lamented, reported on and openly discussed for years. In fact, the governments of France and other European nations have identified specific enclaves, where Muslim immigrants have chosen not to assimilate, as areas in which law enforcement has lost some degree of control. http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/yes-there-are-no-go-zones-in-europe/
I don't particularly like that advice. I think it would be a tragedy if centuries of Jewish French culture had to die out because Jews were chased out by Islamist thugs. The French government agrees -- for now at least -- and has posted armed soldiers everywhere Jews live and gather.
Still, what Netanyahu understands is that there is strength in numbers. The more Jews there are in Israel, the stronger Israel will be. The flip side is that the fewer Jews there are in France -- or Europe or America -- the weaker Jews as a whole will be.
But no matter how you slice it, Jews are at a numerical disadvantage.
People understand that in a democracy there will always be strength in numbers. The politician who gets the most votes wins, the constituency with the most voters gets heard the most, etc. This also tends to be true of intellectuals, activists and businesses. If China didn't have more than 1 billion people, Hollywood wouldn't kowtow to Chinese sensibilities. And if Duke University didn't have a growing number of Muslim students, no one would have thought to broadcast calls to prayers from its chapel bell tower.
And if there were a billion Jews in the Middle East, HarperCollins would never have edited out Israel from its atlas. The publisher was recently embarrassed by the revelation (first reported by the British Catholic magazine The Tablet) that it had been selling an atlas "developed specifically for schools in the Middle East," promising "in-depth coverage of the region and its issues" that nonetheless left Israel on the cutting room floor. A spokesman for the subsidiary that put out the map told The Tablet that including Israel would be "unacceptable" to their customers in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere. And the customer is always right.
A similar attitude pervades the leaders of the so-called international community. Tiny Israel manages to chafe the sensitive pinstriped derrieres of the State Department and foreign ministries around the globe. According to "realists," Israel is a problem because the majority of nations -- and many Muslims in the West -- don't like it. It was this sort of thinking that prompted French President Francois Hollande initially to ask Netanyahu not to attend the unity march in Paris against terrorism. It's also probably why Hollande ostentatiously walked out on Netanyahu's remarks at the Grand Synagogue.
Realism itself is not anti-Semitic. But it's often hard to tell where realism ends and anti-Semitism begins, as when a French diplomat in 2001 famously used a common epithet to describe that "sh***y little country Israel" and blame it for all the troubles in the world. He added, "Why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?" Many had similar attitudes about Czechs and Poles before World War II.
Since 2006, the U.N. Human Rights Council has condemned Israel 50 times. It has denounced human rights violators such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and China zero times.
Nearly every conversation about the Charlie Hebdo cartoons makes reference to the fact that there are 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide, as if there's an obvious correlation between the number offended and the nature of the offense. This is less about manners and more about power worship. A musical mocking Mormons (15 million worldwide) has been a smash hit on Broadway for years. Yet according to many of the same people who leap to defend Muslim sensibilities on cable TV, defending Mormon sensibilities marks you as a rube.
In much of the Muslim world, newspapers frequently run vile anti-Semitic cartoons depicting, for instance, Jews dressed as Nazis eating babies. Perhaps if Jews outnumbered Muslims by roughly 115 to 1 rather than the other way around, we'd hear more about those blasphemous drawings.
Anyone who cherishes democracy understands that numbers matter. But the key word in "liberal democracy" is "liberal," not "democracy." A mob can be of one mind on an issue, but that doesn't make it right. And giving into the mob simply because it is large and dangerous may be realistic, but a better word for it is "appeasement."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah012115.php3
Comments