The 2014 Mid-Term Election: Part 1.

This summer, it has been comparatively easy to ignore domestic American politics. It’s the silly season for the media. Ferguson apart, nothing much has hit the British press about USA for some weeks, except its foreign policy and initiatives in the Middle East. However, Labor Day fast approaches and that is when the political equivalent of “gentlemen, start your engines” will reverberate through the USA. The November mid-terms are only ten weeks away. Who will be in charge of Congress next January?

Let’s first look at the House of Representatives. It seems that it is not in play. The Democrats need to win seventeen seats to re-take the House. If President Obama had higher ratings, if Obamacare was popular, if executive orders on immigration were regarded positively, maybe the US electorate would react well to the Democratic cause. However, rightly or wrongly, the President’s policies are perceived as a disconnect between his wants and those of many Democrats who are on the ballot paper. The latter, of course, pay far more attention to their constituents than the needs of the Party. After all, they are elected for only two years.

Today, it seems the Democrats have zero chance of a House win. Indeed, a good result for them would be to maintain the status quo. An acceptable result would be keeping seat losses under ten. If so, the 2016 House election, with the Party led by a new Democratic presidential hopeful, will offer a much better chance.

The Democrats enjoy a majority of ten seats in the Senate, including two independents who caucus with the Party. If the Democrats lose their majority in November, it follows the Republicans will likely control both Houses of Congress. As a consequence, they will enjoy the considerable power of chairing all congressional committees in both Houses and will have no problem rejecting legislative initiatives emanating from the White House. The Republicans will send all manner of unacceptable Bills to the President, forcing him to use his veto stamp. Should the Republicans achieve a majority of 60/40 in the Senate, the vetoes will be overridden. Therefore, much depends on the Senate races.

Three Democratic seats are as good as lost. Incumbent John Walsh (D) has dropped out of the Montana race over plagiarism allegations. The Democrats are very unpopular in West Virginia and the Republican candidate, Congresswoman Shelley Moor (R), is a heavy favorite. In South Dakota, the Republicans are way ahead in the polls. In addition, Arkansas and Louisiana will be very tough races for the Democrats. Also, the Republicans are polling well in Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina and Alaska.  If six of these seats are lost by the Democrats, and the Republicans hold all their seats, the game is up for the Democratic majority.

The unknown quantity remains the Republican brand. Its right wing element and the Tea Partiers, are regarded as uncaring, having a personal hatred of the chief executive, are anti-abortion, pro low taxation, opposed to gun controls and homophobic. These attitudes may push voters into the Democratic camp. It is too late in this election for the Republicans to alter their stance.

I expect the Democrats to push the message home: “If you want austerity, if you want to go back to ‘rugged individualism’ and all that entails, if you want the federal government to stop spending money on education and healthcare and old people, then vote Republican for this is surely what you’ll get.”

So far the mid-terms have not caught fire. I expect this to alter soon. I’ll blog again on this topic in a few weeks. Maybe there will be a game-changer or an October Surprise. After all, this is American politics. However, I have to say that, whatever the result, America’s problems are unlikely to be solved by the 114^th Congress.

Obama and the Fundamentalists

 I wish this blog was about a new pop group or boy band. It isn’t. Once again, I am venturing into an area where I struggle to understand the behaviour of some human beings. How will the free world deal with the problem that is the Islamic State, IS?

No doubt, experts will tell me there are several groups of jihadists and fundamentalists who follow a screwed up, vicious and damagingly conservative interpretation of Islam. So be it. This blog uses IS as a collective for all such groups. They disgust me. What form of religion endorses beheading, murder for those who refuse to convert and excludes women from everything except cooking, cleaning and child-birth?

One burning question is, how will the free world respond to incursions by IS into its territory? We can be certain that IS will not limit its operations to Syria and Iraq. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey will have their collective collar felt. And nations who seek to curtail IS activities will soon enough suffer acts of terrorism.

One definition of insanity is to ask the same question more than once, expecting different answers. At the moment, the West is doing exactly that and seemingly content to let the Americans bear the brunt of military action, with help from the British in providing humanitarian relief. Go back to 2001. It is almost a repeat of the Iraq war. Where now is France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and any other democratic nation which would resist the attempted hegemony of IS? These countries are an imitation of Madame Lafarge.

Would the current situation afford an opportunity to bring Russia back into the fold? Mr Putin might bring a fresh perspective on how to deal with rogue elements in world society. Yes, it goes against the grain to be an ally of his regime but this is politics. And if the Russians have been supplying arms to IS, which I doubt, they might think twice about continuing such a policy.

In this week’s Sunday Times, the editorial proposed action and cunning. Fine, what precisely does this newspaper and certain British politicians advocate? In brief, a repeat of Iraq 2001. With what outcome? The Americans left Iraq with a religiously slanted government in charge and paid a shocking price in thousands of American and Iraqi lives, not to mention a divided Middle East.

What of Afghanistan? We all know the Taliban are biding their time until the Americans leave. What chances are there of the current government remaining in power? If the Taliban took over, would we see the West return and fight with troops on the ground? And yet this is advocated against IS. The trouble is that even if IS are decimated – in the true meaning of the word – there would remain sufficient numbers of these brigands to keep us worried.

I have no solution to the indoctrination issue but it seems to me one possible way forward is to hit groups like IS and the Taliban where it hurts, in the wallet. All free nations opposed to IS, let’s call them the Alliance, should pass laws to enable the following actions.

1.      Cut off the money supply. Outlaw the payment of ransoms to free captured western citizens. I realise this is bad news for those who are kidnapped but they put themselves into danger.

2.      Where possible, seize the bank accounts of IS. Obviously, there are banks in Iran and Syria who hold funds for IS. In those cases, all western banks should refuse to accommodate or deal with those banks until the rogue accounts are blocked. Funds seized could be sent to a specially designated UN account and used to aid refugees fleeing from IS.

3.      Prosecute everyone who provides financial aid to IS. Here, a collective action is vital. IS has to realise that it is not tolerated anywhere in the free world and cannot use the beneficial processes of the West to help in its dirty work. Those convicted of providing aid will receive a life sentence with no parole.

4.      Corporations providing arms and munitions to IS will be prosecuted. If found guilty, the corporation will be heavily fined and placed into compulsory liquidation. The responsible officers will be imprisoned for life, no parole. Any nations approving the supply of arms and munitions will suffer draconian sanctions.

5.      Proscribe IS and all similar groups. Anyone convicted of membership should receive a compulsory life sentence, no parole. The message will be, “Be a martyr by all means but spend your life behind bars, with all the ‘comforts’ a lifer enjoys in a male prison.” I know this is an awful proposal but look at the devastation these individuals can cause. 9/11 and 7/7 are examples.

IS will retaliate. Hostages will be taken and attempts will be made to trade for essential supplies. This should be resisted. There will be military options, too, for the West and nations like Saudi Arabia will support. Only last week, that nation’s leading cleric declared IS as Islam’s greatest enemy. Effectively, IS poses a present and serious threat to the free world. These are not my words. This is what Philip Hammond, the British Foreign Secretary said this weekend.

So, at the risk of being accused of using rhetoric similar to that of IS, let the free world send a message to IS. “Not only will we use our mighty military strength to defeat you, we will also cut off your financial blood supply. We will bankrupt you and starve you of everything you need to pursue your evil aims. If we catch your acolytes in our territories, their lives will be as good as over. Your prescription for life under your Islamic rule is anathema to everything we believe in and we will fight and destroy you.”

I feel so much better for getting this off my chest.

Obama's Foreign Policy and ISIS

Obama’s Foreign Policy: Look out, ISIS!


Who is ISIS, or the Islamic State as they now call themselves? Who do they represent? What do they stand for? How do they recruit followers when their views of the Islamic state and the world are against not only mainstream Islam but also the interests of most people in the Islamic world? Who supplies them with arms? And why is it necessary for the American and British governments to wade in when the governments of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others in the region, who have the assets necessary to carry out humanitarian missions as well as military strikes, do nothing to save lives?

ISIS is an extremist group that follows al-Qaeda's hard-line ideology and adheres to global jihadist principles. It is anti-West, promotes religious violence and opposes with violence Muslims who do not agree with it. ISIS's skewered ideology aims to return to the early days of Islam, rejecting “corrupt interpretations.” It condemns caliphates for deviating from what it calls the pure Islam caliphate. ISIS believes that only a legitimate authority can undertake the leadership of jihad and that its first priority is the purification of Islamic society. The rhetoric of “purification” has sinister implications, as it has throughout history, for its assumption of legitimacy.

I have no idea who supplies ISIS with its weapons and who funds ISIS for this purpose. If only the source of funds and weapons could be traced, a solution to the problems created by ISIS looking forward may be available. If the source is cut off, how will ISIS arm itself? In June 2014, The Economist reported that "ISIS may have up to 6,000 fighters in Iraq and 3,000–5,000 fighters in Syria, including perhaps 3,000 foreigners; nearly a thousand are reported to hail from Chechnya and perhaps 500 or so more from France, Britain and elsewhere in Europe". These are not large numbers but I fear The Economist underestimates them.

A major weapon in ISIS's tactical armory is their control of strategic rivers, dams, and water installations. ISIS runs a soft-power program, which includes social services, religious lectures and proselytizing to local populations. It also performs civil tasks such as repairing roads and maintaining the electricity supply. Thus ISIS retains local popularity, at a price.

Why has ISIS received so little publicity until recently? I suppose genocide concentrates the mind of the media and the reported threats by ISIS against the Yazidis to convert to Islam or die makes good copy. The pictures from Mount Sinjar demonstrate the plight of the Yazidis and the serious humanitarian crisis caused by ISIS.

I cannot understand why it is not in the interests of the governments of Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia to fight ISIS, who threaten to undermine and destroy these nations because they do not follow the version of Islam favored by ISIS. I understand that the governments named except Saudi have their internal troubles but is this reason to ignore the threats of ISIS?

I am no Middle East expert. I suspect ISIS and their venal message has been conveyed further than Iraq and Syria. Moderate Muslims in Afghanistan and Turkey must be worried about their futures. Is it in America’s and the West’s interests to take on this vile organization now? Churchill said that “jaw, jaw, jaw was preferable to war, war, war,” but who is there to talk to within ISIS? If no nation with a close interest in defeating jihadists, not to mention the United Nations, will take the strain, the choice for the West is limited. It is either rescue the refugees or let them die.

Surely, the humanitarian crisis, not only of the Yazidis but also the Kurds, deserves the focus of the United Nations. Sadly, this organization, yet again, lacks the moral fortitude, let alone political will, to deal with the problem. So far, the UN has sat on its hands. This is unacceptable.

So, the world leaves it to the Americans and British to take action. This week, Hillary Clinton, distancing herself from an unpopular president, criticized America’s foreign policy. No doubt this is a pre-cursor to Mrs Clinton’s run for the White House. Earlier this year, President Obama articulated a philosophy for avoiding dangerous entanglements overseas that was modest in its ambitions and focused on avoiding mistakes. “Don’t do stupid things,” he said. Mrs Clinton offered a blunt retort, telling an interviewer, “Great nations need organizing principles — and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”

She is right. It’s not a policy, it is a strategy and, with respect to Mrs. Clinton, it’s a sensible strategy. So why would Obama move away from the stated strategy and take swift action in Iraq, risking mission creep, not to mention more hatred from America’s enemies in the Middle East?

On the one hand, dropping some bombs on ISIS probably has done little damage but it sends a message that worse will follow if ISIS continues to make war on innocents. However, we all know that troops on the ground is necessary if ISIS are to be challenged and this would be stupid.

On the other hand, it is often helpful not to have a coherent and understood foreign policy. By introducing uncertainty, the President causes his country’s opponents to worry. They will be unable to predict how he will react in given circumstances. This gives him power.

I’m glad that Mr. Obama will be guided by the anti-stupidity principle. As for the humanitarian relief provided by America and Great Britain, what was Obama meant to do when others sat on their hands? I also hope his opponents in the region will be troubled by the uncertainty of America’s position. But most of all I applaud the President and David Cameron for taking action to save lives.

Israel and Gaza: Tricycle Theatre cancels Jewish Film Festival

This blog concentrates on American politics but I don’t want to be restricted. I want to comment on an apparently small issue that has arisen as a result of the Israel-Gaza conflict.

Not many American readers will have heard of the Tricycle Theatre. It is in Kilburn, a suburb in the north west of London. For many years, the Tricycle has been responsible for many excellent theatrical productions. Also, for almost a decade, it has hosted a Jewish Film Festival, funded in partly by the Israeli Embassy. It has also hosted the London Asian Film Festival, funded in part by the Indian government. Hitherto, the Tricycle has kept an open mind and not been side-tracked by human rights conflicts.

Recently, as a result of Israel’s actions in Gaza, the Tricycle decided to cancel this year’s Jewish Film Festival, on short notice. This was not an isolated incident in the British arts world. For example, the Edinburgh Festival organizers cancelled the performances of a theatre company from Jerusalem. Now, I can understand protests against the delivery of arms manufactured in the UK being sold to the combatants. Why ban film and theatrical performances? What humbug!

Why should I be prevented from attending a Jewish film festival just because the Board of Directors of a theatre choose to discriminate? The Tricycle benefits from public funds, namely a substantial annual grant from the British Arts Council. I hope this year’s grant is clawed back as a result of the Board’s ill-judged and shabby decision to ban showing films on grounds of race or religion.

The first casualty in any war is truth. I find it odd that Israel’s declared casualties in the current conflict are invariably soldiers, whereas no Hamas soldiers have died, according to the Arab press. I believe Hamas continually breaks the cease-fires in the knowledge that Israel will retaliate and be condemned for its pains but this isn’t reported. If I’m right, then surely Hamas must bear equal responsibility for deaths and injuries that ensue from its breach. What does the Tricycle say about this? Nothing, of course.

I live in a liberal society, one where free speech is practised. Why is it assumed by the Tricycle Board that, as a Jew, I would take the Israeli side in this conflict? If I were a Muslim, why would I automatically give my support to Hamas? Therefore, I ask why the Tricycle board should make assumptions about me and have the right to prevent me from viewing films whose performance has already been advertised. While I would not purposely boycott the Tricycle Festival, I do not agree with the Israeli government in its war on innocent Palestinians and their children. Likewise, how can the Hamas position be acceptable on any view when it rejects Israel’s very existence? However, neither position is cause for an arts organisation to decide for its public, on political grounds.

This war is awful and there is no end in sight. Even if the present cease-fire holds, what chances are there for any peace when one side wants the other exterminated? What the Tricycle did was unthinking, stupid and unhelpful. It looks to me as if it was a knee-jerk reaction by asinine lefties seeking to pander. Let me remind the Tricycle Board that in British society, we let people make up their own minds. Interestingly, so do the Israelis. I doubt that the people of Gaza get the same choice.

If You Can’t Beat President Obama, Sue Him.

In a series of events reminiscent of the famous Lewis Carroll book, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, the right-wing menace, looking like the Queen of Hearts but otherwise known as the conservative House Republicans, led by Speaker Boehner, have decided to take legal action against President Obama. What are the grounds? Effectively, they boil down to suing the President for doing his job. The Speaker should be wearing the apparel of the Mad Hatter.

In the past months, the President has used executive power to alter federal health-care and other laws where executive implementation was both permitted by statute and badly needed.  In the UK, the government has a similar power, the use of Statutory Instruments. Anyway, on Wednesday, the House of Representatives used its Republican majority to clear the way for a lawsuit, arguing that the President had exceeded his authority.

The lawsuit faces a doubtful political, not to say legal, future. In the month since the Republicans made clear their intention to sue Obama, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has raised almost $8 billion. That’s a huge amount of cash which will not be used to support the President. The money will be directed towards the Mid-Term campaign. Why would so much money come into the Party coffers? A possible answer is that the Democratic base is incensed that the President should be treated this way.

The President himself is clearly ready for a fight. On Thursday he said of Congressional Republicans, “Everyone sees this as a political stunt, but it’s worse than that because every vote they’re taking ... means a vote they're not taking to help people.”

In a recent CNN International poll, 57 percent of Americans did not believe the Republicans should file a lawsuit. Just 41 percent think they should. The bigger problem for Republicans is that the idea of a lawsuit is producing more intense Democratic resistance than Republican praise. Eighty-four percent of Democrats are against the idea, while 75 percent of Republicans are for it. Independents also are opposed to a lawsuit 55 percent to 43 percent.

The key to success in the midterm elections is firing Party base enthusiasm. No doubt, Republican leaders looked at a lawsuit as a way to get their base, which loathes Obama, to the starting line. But why do it at all? Polls had already indicated that the Republican base was already enthusiastic in voting in the fall. On the other hand, Democrats have desperately been searching for ways to get their voter base to the polls this fall. It occurs to me that the Republicans may have just inadvertently handed their opponents a big stick.

The Palins and other extreme right wingers in American politics have attempted to get an impeachment movement off the ground, regardless of the fact that it would have no hope of success. Obviously, there is a big difference between impeaching a president and suing him. The former is a pipe dream that would have no political support at the moment, whereas the latter has the full support of the Republican establishment, who have moved matters forward in Congress. Both ideas are unpopular with the ordinary American voter. If my analysis is correct, the lawsuit, which the right-winger conservatives own, could give the Republicans an even bigger headache than impeachment.

Politically, this fall’s campaign will now see the Democrat candidates tie their opponents to the waste of time and effort, not to mention cash that is this frivolous lawsuit. The President would cause the Republicans an even bigger problem by recalling Congress this August to get the current legislative program done and expose the Republicans for the shilly-shallying, do-nothing group of spoilers they have become.