An Open Letter to Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg

Dear Mayor Bloomberg,

       I write you as a concerned Democrat and American. Like you, I recognize the urgency of defeating Donald Trump this coming November. Our nation faces an existential crisis. If Trump is re-elected, he will complete the job of undermining the rule of law and subverting our governing institutions that he has worked at so assiduously for more than three years. A second Trump term will spell the end of the American experiment in democracy. In that light, like you I would like to see the Democratic Party nominate a candidate that has as strong a chance of  defeating Donald Trump as possible.
        I know that you have put yourself forward for the Democratic nomination in the belief that you are well equipped to win in the fall, and I would not contradict you. But you are not alone in that regard. Any of the current Democratic candidates could do so with an energetic and strategic campaign. The only question facing us as voters now is to assess who would possess the greatest advantages and who labor under the most severe liabilities in the general election.  
        On this question I likewise agree with you on one point: of all the candidates now running, Senator Bernie Sanders would be most vulnerable in a campaign against Donald Trump. I do not feel this way because I share your assessment of Senator Sanders's politics or the appeal of his policy proposals.
        Rather, I worry that his past will provide too much fodder for Republican spin doctors during a general election campaign. Too much video and audio exists of Bernie Sanders saying and doing things that were tolerably provocative for a local Vermont politician back in the 1980's, but would be shocking in a national campaign today. The foundation of Bernie's appeal to voters is that he has been so consistent in his values and message for the past decade, in which he has been much more careful about the tone of his rhetoric on the national stage. When the images of his firebrand past hit the airwaves, voters may feel they have been deceived in his true character, and turn on him out of a sense of betrayal.
           Taking that into consideration, the question that faces us now is not "who can beat Donald Trump," but "who can win the Democratic nomination other than Bernie Sanders"? The answer to that question, I would propose, is not you or any of the other "moderate" candidates in the Democratic field. Coming into this election the momentum was always with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. The party fielded a moderate candidate in 2016 and lost. Meanwhile, the Republicans fielded a morbidly unfit, malignantly sexist and racist extremist, and met with electoral success. It is no wonder a critical mass of Democrats take from this debacle the lesson that "playing to the center" is a fool's game, and that the party would be well advised to focus on motivating its base voters over any attempt to "win over" the opposition. 
           If the progressive wing of the party has the advantage in choosing the nominee (and for the reasons I outlined above, it does), then the candidate furthest to the right who has any chance of winning the nomination has always been Elizabeth Warren. In both her rhetoric (past and present) and policy proposals Senator Warren appeals to progressive Democrats but is slightly more moderate than Bernie Sanders. Even if they find her too liberal, Warren is the best compromise candidate for whom moderate Democrats may hope.
            I have been a strong supporter of Senator Warren's from the very beginning of this campaign. I am convinced that she will be an optimally powerful opponent against Donald Trump and an excellent president when elected. Your assessment of her may differ, but I think you must agree that she is less vulnerable than Bernie Sanders in the general election. If you are persuaded that she is the most moderate candidate who stands any chance of winning the nomination, I hope that you will consider giving her your endorsement.
            Given the trend in the voting and the polls, Senator Sanders seems well poised to lock up the nomination within the next month at the latest. Unless something is done to change the trajectory of the race, he will be the one on whom all of our hopes to save the nation from Donald Trump will be riding. If you would prevent that contingency, your best option would be to drop out of the race now and throw your support behind Senator Warren. Such a move would bring the moderate and progressive wings of the party together, and forge a broad coalition in preparation for the contest in the fall. 
            I realize that this would be far from what you originally planned when you set out to run for the presidency, but I appeal to your obvious sense of civic duty. Giving your endorsement to Senator Warren would be an inspiring act of selfless patriotism, especially given the constant displays of narcissism, duplicity, and partisan chauvinism by the current President and his Republican enablers. I hope that you will give it some consideration.

                                    Sincerely,


                                     Andrew Meyer

The "Vision for Peace" is a Vision for a One-State Solution

I was at an event yesterday in which a Jewish-American who had lived for many years in Israel was discussing the Trump "Vision for Peace." He presented it as the "best deal" the Palestinian leadership or people are likely to get. That may well be true at this point, but doesn't make the plan anything more than naked political theater. 

 After the presentation was over I went up and asked the speaker how many new Arab-Israeli citizens the plan would create. He wasn't sure, but he agreed that, looking at the map, the number would have to fall somewhere between 500,000-1,000,000. So one must ask, if the plan was carried out, would Bibi ever get re-elected again? No. But it is easy to make promises that you know you will never have to keep, just like it is easy for Jared Kushner to shake his head about how much money the Palestinian leaders are forgoing when you will never have to pony up. 

After asking my shifting demographics question I said to the speaker, "You know, there is a very easy one state solution." "Yes" he said, "but you know what that would mean for Israel." "I know it," I replied, "and Mahmoud Abbas knows it- that is why this 'best deal' is DOA- and Bibi and Trump knew that from the start." 

The easy, fair thing to do would be to make everyone from the Jordan River to the sea (including those in Gaza) an Israeli citizen. That would immediately make Israel a 49% Jewish/51% Palestinian nation. Thus, the creation of a separate Palestinian state is a non-negotiable necessity if Israel wants to persist as a democratic Jewish state along the lines envisioned by Theodore Herzl and David Ben-Gurion. 

Bibi and Trump are in no position to tell the Palestinians what counts as a "best deal," because the Palestinians don't require that their nation contain a majority of any particular religion or even ethnicity- they just want the rights of citizens of a sovereign nation on the land they call home. Since what they are bargaining for is radically simpler, their latitude to make demands has always been much higher. This "Vision for Peace" was never meant as a serious proposal- Bibi and Trump deliberately played politics with an issue that is vitally important to Israelis, Palestinians, and Jews throughout the world. In order to please some religious voters in Israel and evangelical voters in the US they have mortgaged the credibility of the US as a fair broker and that of the Israeli government as a good-faith negotiator. In the long term, they have ensured that a peaceful "one-state solution" is almost certainly the best outcome for which anyone can hope.