Author: Mark

Mark

Stop the Killing and Start Building a Nation

It is incumbent on the United States to implement a much more balanced approach to how it deals with the Israeli/Palestinian crisis. A fundamental paradigm shift in America’s strategic Middle-East policy initiatives related to those two peoples is needed to achieve peace and security. The situation cries out for international leadership that likely only the United States, the most influential player in that arena, can provide. But the US needs to get its own act together to be effective.

Cutting To The Chase – There is absolutely no defense for the heinous rape, torture, and murder of 1200 innocent Israeli citizens by Hamas on October 7th. And no Arab State is arguing against Israel’s right to defend itself. But defense is not what’s happening in Gaza today. That action amounts to senseless slaughter of primarily helpless non-combatants (perhaps 40% of them children) by the Israeli military, and it must stop.

The Israeli Government is carrying out what at best could be called REVENGE for Oct 7th, and at worst GENOCIDE. Cutting off food, water, and medicine to more than 2 million, mostly innocent people, while indiscriminately bombing their homes, hospitals, and other life supporting civilian infrastructure to rubble is not defense, regardless of how Israel tries to spin it. No civilized government does that in the 21st century.

An especially stressful part of this crisis for many Americans is that we are enabling the carnage. Israel is using US military and economic aid to achieve their cruel abuse of defenseless humans. It is time for the Biden Administration to administer more tough love to PM Netanyahu, and for the US to lead the international community in bringing this crime against humanity to an end.

Long Term Peace And Security – That is a whole other matter.  Security for Israel as well as the peaceful fulfillment of the hopes, dreams, and dignity of Palestinians can only be achieved by a two state solution. It’s time to make that happen. I think the Arab States in particular, and the international community in general, are ready to endorse and implement such a strategic initiative. I submit that the United States would find the Arab States to be serious partners eager to achieve that outcome if we (the US) played a more balanced role and enthusiastically promoted the two state solution on the international stage at the UN.

We need to recognize that the Middle-East is different now than it might have been a few decades ago. Today no Arab States are calling for the destruction of Israel. And they are not promoting or supporting terrorism. The economic wealth in the Middle-East has shifted in recent decades toward more pragmatic players. It is in their own economic self-interest to have political stability and expanded trade. That requires interacting with all interest groups. Unfortunately, at this juncture, in their effort to try to manage the reality on the ground, that has also historically required interaction with terrorist groups like Hamas.

The only real holdout against the two state solution is an autocratic Israeli Government. We need to re-assure Israel (maybe even by special treaty) of our unwavering commitment to their defense and security. But in exchange for that we should expect and must require that they enter into good faith negotiations with other stakeholders for the creation of a peaceful, independent, secure, and sovereign Palestinian State. That will require Israel to make some hard compromise choices that they probably consider unthinkable and will likely initially resist. But that is the formula for long term peace and security everywhere in the world.

Aside from Israeli intransigence, undertaking the creation of a sovereign Palestinian State and supporting its political and economic development is not a simple task. It will be a long term heavy lift for the international community. It is critical that such an initiative be done within the framework and authority of the UN for hope of long term success. With the hatred, distrust, and fear on both sides, creating a stable political environment will likely require a couple of decades of UN guidance, oversight, and support. Effectively we will need a new generation of leaders to emerge on both sides. Addressing the devastation on Palestinian infrastructure will also require major international investment as well as substantial assistance in establishing a viable Palestinian national economy and credible institutions of national governance.

It’s easy to write a paragraph about what must be done and how long it might take. It’s quite another for the member states of the UN to actually come together, develop a strategy and geopolitical structure, secure funds, negotiate terms and conditions between two peoples who currently hate each other, and then implement a compromise with which initially neither side will be completely satisfied. But that is the task at hand. The alternative is playing out in Gaza right now with innocent death everyday and no hope of permanent peace for either side. This is worth doing and the United States and other member states of the UN need to step up for the sake of humanity as well as the world order.

Mark

Christian nationalism is not Christianity

This post may be a surprise to some who know me and my lack of religiosity. It shouldn’t be though for those who have read much of my related literature or heard me speak on the subject of religion. Those folks know I believe that a strong social fabric within our communities makes democracy more stable and renders a better collective quality of life. They also know that I believe healthy faith traditions are cornerstones of that social fabric.

While I don’t claim a faith tradition for myself, I am a strong advocate for sincere faith organizations and practitioners. I admire those who respect each other’s differences while advancing selfless caring support for improving the human condition in the world generally and our democracy particularly.

Having said that, it frightens me to see that a large and growing segment of the electorate who call themselves Christians are endorsing and organizing around what I consider an anti-Christian and anti-American political ideology. They have decided to engage in and exercise political power in their efforts to force the American electorate to conform to the hateful and intolerant dogma they mischaracterize as “Christianity”. The term most commonly used to describe that movement is “Christian Nationalism”.

In my view Christian Nationalism is one of the most dangerous political ideologies rearing its ugly head in the US. The advocates have money, strong media presence, and they are peddling a reactionary message to which the casual and/or uninformed Christian community, as well as political conservatives in general, are likely susceptible. That is potentially destructive to both mainstream Christianity in this country as well as our democracy itself. Their hateful doctrine promotes the idea that there must be no separation between church and state as well as advocating white supremacy, hatred for Muslims, anti-LGBTQ+ rights, and other un-American themes.

Unfortunately, given my personal philosophy, I am not a particularly credible person to warn the broader Christian community on this issue and its dangers. Therefore, with his permission I am re-posting an op-ed on Christian Nationalism written by Reverend Timothy Ahrens for the Columbus Dispatch many months ago. Besides being a well respected Christian and Interfaith leader in the community, Tim writes in a way that laypeople can understand. I have observed and interacted with Rev. Ahrens in various interfaith forums over the years. I have great respect for his sincere commitment to his own faith as well as his respect for others who see things differently. Whether coincidence or otherwise we seem to share the same concerns about Christian Nationalists, except that he describes it much more eloquently than I do. Following is his unedited op-ed as it appeared in the Columbus Dispatch:

******************************************************************

Christian nationalism is not Christianity

Tim Ahrens – Guest columnist

A growing number of people have lost track of Christian faith and values and replaced them with a devastatingly corrupt and disturbed idea: Christian nationalism.

In the name of patriotism, a frightening movement of Christian nationalists has gained strength, and now big money is behind them. Michael Flynn, Franklin Graham, Tony Perkins and others have taken their show on the road, with right-wing politicians claiming their view of Christian faith combined with their views of American politics are the right and only view.

Let’s be clear. Patriotism is the love of country.

Patriotism is good because all of God’s creation is good and patriotism helps us appreciate our particular place in it.

Our affection and loyalty to a specific part of God’s creation helps us do the good work of cultivating and improving the part we happen to live in. As people of faith, we can and should love the United States — which also means working to improve our country by holding it up for critique and fighting for justice when it errs.

Nationalism is not patriotism. Nationalism is very different. Nationalism is an argument about how to define our country. In an article in the evangelical magazine, Christianity Today, Paul Miller defines nationalism as grounded in the belief that humanity ‘is divisible into mutually distinct, internally coherent cultural groups which are defined by shared traits like language, religion, ethnicity, or culture.’ Nationalists believe that these groups should each have their own governments; that governments should promote and protect their nation’s cultural identity and that sovereign national groups provide meaning and purpose for human beings.

Christian nationalism asserts that America is and must always remain a ‘Christian nation.’ This is not merely their observation about American history. They present this as a prescriptive program for what America must continue to be in the future.

Scholars like Samuel Huntington have argued that America is defined by its ‘Anglo Protestant’ past and that we will lose our identity and our freedom if we do not preserve our cultural inheritance.

Christian nationalists falsely teach that there is no separation of church and state — and that conservative Christians should seize complete power by any means necessary. Let’s be clear, Christian nationalism is not Christianity. Recently, Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Michael Curry said, ‘If you look at the complex of white Christian nationalism as an ideology and you lay it alongside Jesus of Nazareth, we are not even talking about the same thing.’

Christianity is grounded in Christian scriptures where Jesus teaches love, peace, unity and truth. Christian nationalism preaches hatred, violence, separation, and disinformation.

Christian nationalism is the single biggest threat to both democracy and the Christian faith.

With hundreds of far-right political candidates using Christ’s name to deny election results, demonize their opponents, and spread dangerous conspiracy theories, all with the blessing of pastors and televangelists, the name of Jesus is disparaged and mockery is made of true Christians.

Here is a truly pressing concern. Christian nationalists don’t call themselves this. They call themselves ‘true Christians.’ They are not. They are nationalists who wrap themselves in pseudo-Christian language. Like wolves in sheep skins, they hide behind their true purpose, which is bigotry, racism, separation of people and our nation — all in the name of Jesus.

Jesus would never approve of this. He would call them what they are — false prophets and blasphemers of our faith. More clearly, as in Matthew 23:17, Jesus would call them ‘Blind fools!’

Let’s join with Jesus and call Christian nationalists what they are — destroyers of a great faith and a great nation. And that has nothing to do with either democracy or Jesus Christ.

Mark

Controlling the US Southern Border

I am mildly encouraged by recent public announcements coming from Mexico’s President. He seems interested in cooperating to stem the tide of migrants crossing our southern border. However, public announcements have been made before, even limited cooperation has occurred in the past. The sad fact though is that it never lasts once the pure crisis is over. We need to change that paradigm this time.

It is clear to any casual observer that the United States has lost control of its southern border. Thousands of illegal immigrants are pouring into this country in numbers the federal government is currently unable to handle. The majority are asking for asylum, though most don’t appear to be in danger. They are likely really looking for economic opportunity and using asylum as a means. We have to do something to reestablish law and order, enforce national security, and provide humane treatment for those who really do need asylum protection.

The 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, to which the US is a signatory, are the international agreements that govern treatment of refugees (asylum seekers). The core principle is that such people should not be forced to returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. A country to which they migrate is required to provide housing, medical care, education, jobs, and treatment with the same respect that all other foreign nationals are treated.

A somewhat controversial element of the these agreements specifies that refugees seeking asylum must not be rejected and deported simply for entering the country illegally. In my reading of these international agreements, there is no requirement to allow migrants to enter our country illegally, only that if they do, we have to consider their asylum requests in good faith.

Overwhelming illegal entry is where the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finds itself on the southern border today – between a rock and hard place, so to speak. Their resources are stretched beyond a capacity to deal effectively with the demand. That makes the current situation untenable. It is disrupting normal American life, and creating political division among states, cities, and the electorate. And it is leading to inhumane conditions for migrants along the border as well as in major American cities.

We are unable to investigate and assess the legitimacy of claims for asylum at the rate they are coming. For lack of enough infrastructure, but to honor our treaty obligations, we are simply releasing many into the interior with instructions to wait for an asylum hearing that often may be years in the future. Worse, we are not able to conduct a rigorous enough screening to pick up disease, criminality, or other dangers to American citizens before they are released.

It is time to face reality. We must do what it takes to gain control of our borders. But we must process asylum seekers who do cross in a timely manor. And we must treat those immigrants we allow to stay in our country humanely. That requires making hard political and humanitarian choices we’d rather not face. Following are key things we must do if we actually care about securing the border any time soon:

  • Regardless of, or maybe because of, our endorsement of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, we must stop immigrants from crossing our border illegally; that way we can manage the total number of migrants we allow into the United States in a rational way. No country can be expected to compromise the internal safety and security of its own citizens by allowing uncontrolled illegal migration.
  • We must publicly declare to the international community that we are about to stop migrants from entering the United States illegally across our borders; and that anyone caught trying to enter illegally will be immediately refused and ineligible for entry consideration in the future.That public position, if broadly disseminated, may itself partially dampen some of the flow of migrants.
  • In conjunction with that public announcement of intentions, the Biden Administration must quickly gain physical control of the southern border. That means using all means available, including substantially increased and mobilized border control personnel (US Border Patrol, federalized national guard, and/or other appropriate human resources), drones and other electronic surveillance, physical barriers, and military and diplomatic cooperation with Mexico, to stop illegal entry.
  • Persons apprehended trying to enter the US illegally must not be considered for entry regardless of asylum claims. Success in this effort will be recognized when all potential migrants, both asylum seekers and others, are forced to apply through the normal immigration process in countries of origin or at official US ports of entry.
  • The Administration must also quickly assess and report to Congress the federal government’s ongoing daily capacity to process and assimilate asylum seekers in an efficient, timely, and humane manner. Within that defined capacity, asylum seekers must be graded and prioritized for entry based on the severity of the danger they face in their home country as well as USCIS’s capacity in accordance with international asylum standards. All migrants without a legitimate asylum case must be turned away, or if they chose, placed in the cue for normal immigration consideration.
  • If we don’t have the processing and assimilation capacity to handle all migrants with legitimate asylum claims, we may have to accept only those most at risk, with some other intermediate treatment for those in less danger. The Administration should ask Congress for funds to expand our capacity if we cannot handle all legitimate asylum seekers. Regardless, no migrants should be released into the US because of capacity limits or without proper vetting and ongoing federal supervision before an asylum hearing.
  • Because stopping migrants from illegally entering the US at our southern border will most affect Mexico, and because Mexico is also in the best position to assist in that endeavor, we must be prepared to partner with and support Mexican efforts. That likely means significant economic assistance, as well as close coordination and cooperation with Mexican military and law enforcement operations.
  • The most effective approach to choking off illegal immigration is probably to stop US bound migrants at the southern Mexican border. I don’t know what assistance Mexico may need in that regard, but we must be prepared to provide all reasonable support. We should expect Mexico to cooperate; after all it’s in their own self-interest. But in the end if they do not, we simply must move to stop migrants from illegally crossing our shared border to enter the US.
  • The Biden Administration is our first line of defense in gaining control of our borders and stopping the flow of illegal immigrants. I believe the President has the authority to do everything I am suggesting under his responsibility to protect national security. It would take political courage, but could all be done very quickly. It would also take strong hands-on leadership from the President himself. 
  • Initially the actions I have outlined will be a brute force effort, which is unsustainable in the long term. At the same time he takes these actions, the President must also challenge Congress to immediately follow through with the necessary investment in infrastructure, systems, technology, personnel, and logistics to deploy an efficient sustainable border security network.

Ultimately over the medium and long term it is Congress’s job to draft, debate, and pass legislation that reforms immigration policy, provides robust border security, and addresses immigrants already here illegally; a key quality measure of that legislation will be judged by whether it deals humanely and with empathy toward law abiding immigrants who have significant long term roots in the US even though they came here illegally. First among that group deserving empathetic treatment must be the “dreamers” (residents brought here as children).

The focus of any comprehensive federal immigration legislation must be on what is in the best long term interests of the United States. It should include recognizing the role immigrants will play in filling the need for sustaining and continued expansion of our labor force. The legislation should take in to account the economic, professional, and cultural value immigrants have brought and will continue to bring to our democracy. It must also be inclusively balanced in immigration quotas across the international community based on relative populations of the many nations, and not biased in favor of one population over another.

I know the more progressive Democrats will say what I am suggesting is far too draconian, naive, hateful, unworkable, and inhumane. They will say I’m anti-immigrant, a white supremacist, or worst, a Republican. Let them! My pro-immigrant credentials are well documented. Of course Republicans will say I am coddling and proposing citizenship for those “illegal alien criminals” who are already living among us, and am trying to further dilute the real American electorate by giving those illegals the vote. Both positions are disingenuous.

Truth is, I live in the real world where if one wants to solve a problem, hard decisions have to be made and tough actions taken. What I suggest is bold, but simple, rational, and effective if we really want to control our border and bring sanity to the immigration process.

I know it will be hard work that will produce less than perfect results. And I know it cannot happen overnight. But a committed President can have the border fully under control in 60-90 days. Long term border security will take longer and must engage Congress in a way they have been unwilling to consider in the past. Simply demonstrating that we can control the border, but what it takes using brute force tactics, may convince them to implement a more strategic, efficient, and rational approach.

Mark

Is Trump Guilty of Insurrection?

It is time for American politicians, judiciary, and the electorate to step up and support democratic governance. After review of the evidence, the Supreme Court of Colorado found former president Donald Trump guilty in the January 6th insurrection, and therefore determined he is not eligible to run in the Colorado primary election. Their ruling was in accordance with the terms of the 14th Amendment, which specifies that engagement in insurrection disqualifies an individual from holding public office. 

Trump lawyers say the 14th Amendment does not apply to a sitting president. Paraphrasing their argument, they say the Amendment applies to Senators, Representatives, and Officers of the United States. They say a president holds none of those positions, including that of an Officer of the United States Government. If it had been the intent of the Congress that the Amendment should apply to the president, they say, the language would have specified that.

So let’s consider the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment. The government had just put down an insurrection. Congress drafted and voted for the Amendment; the states ratified it. With it Congress and the states were declaring that those who led, participated in, or supported an insurrection could not be trusted in our democratic government and must not be allowed to hold public office.

I am quite familiar with the detailed language in the 14th Amendment as well as the contemporary political and electoral context of the time in which it was passed. Reading the amendment as excluding the president from its scope is patently absurd. That would mean a president could promote, even lead, an insurrection, and if not ultimately successful the first time, may run for the presidency again, hold the office if elected, and then lead another insurrection to achieve his/her personal objectives. Does any rational person think that Congress would have intended that insurrectionists could not hold any federal or state political office EXCEPT President of the United States?

At this point in time, the only serious question anyone should be asking is whether former President Trump is guilty of insurrection as the Colorado Supreme Court has found. If the answer to that is “YES”, then Donald J. Trump must NOT be allowed to appear on the ballot in any state for any federal or state public office.

Mark

Additional Thoughts on Israel/Hamas Conflict

My recent post on the Israel/Hamas conflict brought a fair amount of comment from several critics. Apparently my claim that only a two state solution could lead to long term Middle-East peace was a bridge too far for several folks.

One said what Israel was doing in Gaza was exactly right and I was too naive to recognize it. Another said that I was clearly anti-Israel, or worst, pro-Hamas and was endorsing its goal of destroying Israel. One said the Palestinians had the chance for their own state 75 years ago and refused; now there could never be peace as long as they occupied part of the Jewish Homeland. That individual did not suggest where Palestinians should go. Another misquoted me as saying Hamas was right on October 7th. Not a single comment expressed concern for the plight of the Palestinian People.

I am certainly familiar with the history of the creation of Israel, the rejection of the UN two state solution by the Palestinians at that time, and the impact this ongoing conflict has had on all Middle-Eastern people. I am not here to defend the Palestinians rejecting the UN “partition” plan. I would note however that the plan was quite biased in favor of the Jews. And I suspect that presented with a similarly unbalanced choice as the Palestinians were offered, virtually all Americans would reject it as well.

I spent more time on the ground pursuing investment and strategic partnership opportunities in Israel, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt than I care to relive. Regardless, that experience did give me some sense of the hopes, dreams, and politics of the various peoples in the region. Unlike the Israeli and American extremists like to claim, virtually non of them (except Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Iranian backed terror groups) have the destruction of Israel as their goal.

As for me saying Hamas was right on Oct. 7th: if the individual claiming that had read my literature more carefully, if he read it at all, he would have seen that I was quite critical of Hamas’s October 7 attack. I specifically wrote that what they did was “pure inhuman evil and is way beyond what any civilized people would do to others, even in war”.

But regardless of what Hamas did, withholding food, water, fuel, and medical supplies from 2 plus million mostly innocent people to punish a few hundred terrorists with indiscriminate bombing is itself criminal. It is certainly not the behavior of a civilized democratic government. It is also guaranteed to fail because it creates a near infinite new supply of terrorists. A special forces approach to gain intelligence, root out the terrorist leaders, and find the hostages would likely produce substantially better results. I recognize Israel will say that would expose their solders to increased danger. That is probably true if Israel’s timetable is a few weeks rather than months. That type of warfare takes time, patience, and intelligence. It certainly can’t be done quickly and it does lack the pizazz of leveling entire city blocks, as they are doing now.

The “jury is still out” on how history is ultimately going to assess this current Israel/Hamas conflict. I suspect if/when the mass killing stops this time, Israel’s star will be seriously tarnished in the eyes of the international community. I am just thankful that the Biden Administration is finally stepping up to try to moderate Israel’s brutal military behavior. The Administration’s willingness to openly reference the creation of a Palestinian State as the only long term solution is clearly a positive move as well.

Mark

Israel/Hamas Conflict

A week or two ago I traded emails with a friend regarding my views on the Israel/Hamas conflict. Thinking of how I described my feelings about the issue in that exchange made me decide to record my perspective here for future reference. Following is a less personalized and hopefully more thoughtful and less emotional version of what I shared with my friend.

First, up front let me declare that the barbaric attack by Hamas on  Israeli citizens cannot be justified on any rational military or geopolitical level. It was pure inhuman evil and is way beyond what any civilized people would do to others, even in war. Regardless, I am beginning to find Israel’s military response against mostly innocent Palestinian people very troublesome as well. While I’m sure the IDF is not specifically trying to kill innocents in the most gruesome ways, as Hamas did, their military actions seem also to be demonstrating a lack of basic concern for human life.

Before I go further I want to clarify that I consider there is a fundamental difference between the Israeli people in general, and the current Israeli government in particular. I absolutely admire most of the Israeli people I have known. In my personal experience from many trips there, I found they are generally sincere, caring, and interested in the same things people everywhere want – to live, work, and raise their families in peace. They certainly share a common Israeli nationalist pride in their country, but I don’t think it is any different from what every nation’s citizens feel about their own country.

The current and some former Israeli governments are a different story all together. Netanyahu is exhibiting a dictatorial mindset and autocratic style similar to Viktor Orban or Donald Trump. And the members of the cabinet he has installed in his current government are, almost to a person, authoritarian extremists of the worst kind. They do not reflect the will of the Israeli people I know. I personally speculate that the reason Hamas chose to attack when it did was likely the result of their belief that domestic unrest over the PM’s anti-democratic actions had distracted the Israeli government enough that an attack could be successful.

  I fully support Israel’s right to respond to Hamas with all necessary force. But I reject the notion, as some are suggesting, that we have no right to criticize Israel for how it is conducting its military operations, given our fire and atomic bombing strategy in WWII. What we (the US and allies) did in that war must not be the standard by which we justify the behavior of Israel or any other country today. I know not every country or “tribe” behaves responsibly, but the world in general is more democratic and civilized now than it was then. And we have much more precise intelligent weapons systems and methods. Democratic governments today must be much more sensitive to collateral damage and military operations must be more surgical than was possible in previous conflicts.

I even think we make a mistake calling the Hamas/Israeli conflict a war. Hamas is a terrorist organization, not a legitimate combatant. And most of the Palestinian people in Gaza are victims just as Israeli citizens were on October 7th. Describing the conflict as a war gives Hamas a level of credibility that tends to justify Israel in using broad destructive operations with associated loss of innocent life. Of course Israel’s easiest military solution is simply to level everything in Gaza, which they seem to be executing. But doing that in the way Israel is playing it right now I think probably borders on war crimes.

Every conflict happens within a political, social, or historical context. While nothing justifies what Hamas did on Oct. 7th, the seeds for that atrocity have been sown repeatedly over the past 50 plus years. Israel has exercised a brutal occupation of Palestinian land, treated its people with contempt, granted virtually no independent rights, and have been unwilling to seriously consider any reasonable level of Palestinian self-governance. Sadly, the US has played the role of Israeli enabler throughout the whole mess.

When people have no hope, it is naive not to expect that some/most may resort to extreme measures in an attempt to gain relief. The Gaza Palestinians chose Hamas as a possible solution. In retrospect that was a mistake; Hamas has an entirely different agenda. It has not delivered anything but misery for the Palestinian people, and today does not even consider the needs of that electorate.

But what Palestinian could have known that at the time? It probably seemed a real political opportunity, or at least a less terrible alternative than then existed. All together understandable in my view. In fact right now with nothing remotely similar to what the Palestinians have faced for 50 years, many Americans are supporting the insanity of re-electing Donald Trump, apparently just to disrupt the current national political paradigm.

It is well past time for the international community, including the United States, to hold the Israeli government accountable to demonstrate more commitment to the safety, security, and humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people than they have so far, both in Gaza and the West Bank. Worldwide popular opinion demands it. At the same time Israel’s heavy handed military approach is spawning anti-Semitic demonstrations and violence everywhere. Those events are focusing hate on innocent Israelis as well as the international Diaspora of people of Jewish faith and/or heritage.

How this will end I don’t know. But I do know it is not in Israel’s best interest to continue its current strategy, or to occupy Gaza, if it wants to survive as a democracy and live in peace with its neighbors. I also know they can’t eliminate Hamas until they eliminate the reason such terrorists organizations exist. And right now Israel’s actions are recruiting and training the next generation of Hamas terrorists. At some point the Israeli government must face that reality.

What is needed most in this conflict and for long term peace and security is for Israel to publicIy recognize the need for and to endorse a two state solution, along with a pledge to actively support its implementation as soon as practical. At the same time they need to stop broad destructive operations in Gaza and support humanitarian efforts.

If Israel were to make a legitimate public commitment to implementation of two states living side by side in peace, the geopolitical environment would likely dramatically change immediately. Support for Hamas from the power players in the Middle-East would likely dissipate substantially and quickly shift to lobbying for influence in shaping the character of that political arrangement.

Even if Israel were to agree in principle, creating a sustainable two state solution will not be a walk in the park. The international community, via the UN, must play the key role in facilitating, lending credibility, and insuring fairness in the negotiating process and the ultimate implementation of an agreement. Israeli/Palestinian negotiations must not including Hamas, Hezbollah, or other terrorist organizations, but have as its goal the creation of the State of Palestine as soon as practical and with as much independent sovereign authority as possible.

Israel will likely resist the most critical elements of a successful arrangement and will have to make major (probably currently unthinkable) concessions to create a sovereign Palestinian State. Perhaps the most useful role for the US in such negotiations might be in influencing the Israelis to accept a truly balanced agreement. Subsequently, whatever the arrangement, it will be the broader international community in its commitment to Palestinian economic development that will insure success or failure.

Mark

2022 Non-Defense Discretionary Spending

The Eleven Categories of 2022 Non-defense Discretionary Spending

Health ($141B) – includes Veterans Hospital and Medical Care, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Public Health and Social Services

Education, Training, Employment, Social Services ($132B) – covers most of the Departments of Education and Labor –  includes special education, education for the disadvantaged, Pell Grants, worker training and employment services, and Head Start

Veterans Services ($113B) – includes general operating expenses for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the National Cemetery Administration, and other Veterans’ support services

Transportation ($112B) – Includes ground, air, water and other transportation and operations infrastructure; construction and maintenance of streets, highways, bridges, railways, airports, air traffic control, ferries, and other related transportation costs

Income Security ($93B) – includes general retirement and disability insurance; federal employee retirement and disability (including military retirement); unemployment compensation; housing assistance; nutrition assistance; and other income security, including programs like foster care, Supplemental Security Income, and the Earned Income and Child Tax Credits

International Affairs ($71B) – includes worldwide US diplomatic operations; embassy security, construction, and maintenance; contributions to international organizations including the United Nations; educational and cultural exchange programs; non-military international media programs including Voice of America, Broadcasting to Cuba, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcasting Network; operations of the Export-Import Bank of the United States as well as assistance programs including U.S.Global Health Program, Migration and Refugee Assistance, Food for Peace Grants, International Disaster Assistance, Development Assistance, Multilateral Assistance, and International Security Assistance

Administration of Justice ($68B) – includes Federal Court System, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Secret Service, Department of Justice (DOJ),Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), U.S. Marshals (USMS), and Federal Prison System

Community and Regional Development ($46B) – includes Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program; Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education; and Rural Utilities Service infrastructure and infrastructure improvements for rural communities, including water and waste treatment, electric power, and telecommunications services

Natural Resources and Environment ($44B) – includes funding for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Army Corps of Engineers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Forest Service, National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)

General Science, Space, and Technology ($37B) – covers National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Science Foundation (NSF), Department Of Energy Science Programs

Other ($53B) – everything not in one of the 10 major categories

Mark

Federal Deficit Spending/National Debt

This week (November 17th), we are facing another potential shut down of the federal government, for lack of willingness in the House of Representatives to pass the necessary budget resolutions. There appears to be some last minute jockeying, but the underlying sticking point seems to be non-defense discretionary spending levels. Some Republican House members have been demanding a 30% cut in that spending category, ostensibly to eliminate waste and reduce the federal deficit.

A look at the 2022 Actual Federal Budget Results

Total 2022 Federal Revenues $4.9 Trillion

  —————————————————————————-

Total Federal Expenditures $6.3 Trillion

Mandatory $4.1 Trillion

Discretionary $1.7 Trillion

Defense $.75 Trillion

Non-Defense $.91 Trillion

Interest on National  Debt $.50 Trillion

        ===========================================

2022 Federal Budget Deficit $1.4 Trillion

Note:  The final 2023 budget deficit has not yet been determined. The current official estimate is for a $1.5 trillion deficit. However, as of May when that estimate was made, spending was roughly the same this year as last. However, revenues were running well below forecast. If that trend continued through September, some say the 2023 deficit may be as large as $2 trillion.

What is Discretionary Spending, Anyway?

Republicans seem to be obsessed with massive waste in federal discretionary spending, but only in non-defense expenditures. Democrats on the other hand, push for cut backs in wasteful discretionary defense spending, but want more non-defense spending.

So what is discretionary spending? It includes all federal spending that must be authorized by Congress on an annual basis. That is as opposed to mandatory spending, which by law is funded for the indefinite future and available to anyone who qualifies in accordance with established program criteria – things like Social Security and Medicare fall into that category. Discretionary spending typically accounts for about 25% of the federal budget.

Most Americans probably have a general understanding of what defense spending buys. Likely few have a reasonably similar understanding of what is included in non-defense discretionary spending. So, a primer paragraph on that specific classification of spending seems in order:

There are eleven categories of funding called non-defense discretionary spending. They include Veterans benefits, Center for Disease Control (CDC) and National Institute of Health (NIH) operations, State Department operations, Justice Department operations, Federal Court System operations, and several other critical government functions. For a list, definition, and total expenditures in each of those eleven categories in 2022, review a companion post titled “ 2022 Non-Defense Discretionary Spending”.

Wasteful Federal Spending

So is there waste in federal non-defense discretionary spending programs? Absolutely, just as there is in every other federal spending program, whether discretionary or mandatory. Then is there reliable evidence that waste in non-defense discretionary spending is worse than discretionary defense spending, or any other federal spending program? NO; there is no such evidence.

The problem with non-defense discretionary spending and the reason it is such an easy target for reactionary politicians to claim vast waste seems to be that it buys “soft value” for American society – things like keeping democratic institutions functioning, supporting international relationships, maintaining domestic rule of law, and helping the more disadvantaged and economically or healthcare desperate members of our electorate. It’s hard to see, feel, or touch those programs the way one might a $90 million F-35 fighter plane.

Thruthfully, a reasonable case can be made that in discretionary spending, waste is substantially more prevalent in defense than in non-defense spending. In fact, the Defense Department seems to be the single biggest waster of funds in the entire federal government. It is the only federal agency that has never successfully passed a single annual financial audit in more than 30 years.

And it is not just sloppy accounting or potential mismanagement of funds that is questionable in the Defense establishment; it is also defense policy decisions themselves. The “defense/industrial complex” seems to be quite alive and well, and many argue that is the force promoting major wasteful programs. One example which is frequently cited:  The Air Force is budgeting for deployment of a new fleet of manned heavy bombers. With US intercontinental ballistic missiles able to strike any specific target in the world precisely in about 30 minutes, who can imagine the need for a hundred new more advanced MANNED heavy bombers beyond what we already have, and at a cost of $700 million a copy? That demonstrates the political and financial influence of the US defense industry.

Regardless of all the above, arguing about cutting discretionary federal spending to reduce the deficit is for the most part a waste in itself. We have only to honestly ask ourselves whether we actually could substantially reduce the budget deficit by simply reducing wasteful discretionary spending, regardless of whether defense or non-defense. The answer to that question in easy. Given that discretionary spending is only about a quarter of the federal budget – There is not any chance!!

Focusing on that question a bit more though, think about this: Suppose we had just decided to cut the non-defense discretionary spending category by 30% in 2022, as Republicans are now pushing for in this year’s budget. In that scenario the deficit would still have been more than a trillion dollars without taking into account other economic stresses that move would have created.

The truth is that a 30% reduction in non-defense discretionary spending would probably not have produced any real savings at all. The funds that would have been withheld are exactly the ones that would have been immediately spent by the recipients, helping to drive further economic activity. Cutting them would have had a likely catastrophic negative impact on the broader US economy; federal revenues would have dropped significantly, maybe forced a recession, and civil impact/unrest would have been devastating in unpredictable ways.

Eliminating waste in federal spending and reducing the annual federal deficit are certainly worthy endeavors. Ultimately working toward a future balanced budget ought to be one of our key national financial goals. But a strategy focusing that effort only on reduced discretionary spending is a fantasy. It would require eliminating all non-defense spending as well as more than half of the defense budget. No honest politician would ever propose that kind of solution, and even those who have all know it’s not a legitimate objective.

It’s time to face the reality that there simply isn’t enough waste in discretionary spending to even make a serious dent in our current annual deficit. But we do need to take the annual federal deficit and the growing national debt seriously. I can easily make a strong case for why our current economic trajectory of deficit spending is unsustainable and, if not addressed, will ultimately lead to the loss of our democracy. Therefore the question is:  what should we be doing?

It’s time for a bit of reality therapy!

Regardless of the current political chaos, if cooler more rational heads eventually do prevail, achieving a substantially reduced annual deficit and/or a balanced budget will require fundamental reform of the entire structure of how we raise federal revenue, what we spend it on, and what our national budget priorities are. That includes restructuring all spending and revenue programs, including so-called “third rail” political issues like Social Security and Medicare, as well as revenue increases through tax reform. Of course all discretionary and mandatory spending programs must be addressed as part of a holistic approach to budget management.

Because our federal revenue and spending needs are not static, let’s take a realistic look at future federal funding requirements and priorities. First, our population is aging, just as it is in every other developed country. That means that social spending needs (SS, Medicare/Medicaid, as well as discretionary social spending needs) will continue to grow year after year. Second, economic inequality is beginning to be a destabilizing influence in our democratic system of government; that also is growing at an alarming rate. And though unpopular among conservative politicians, we need to address that in the near term to protect our democratic political viability. Third, if we want to continue to compete and maintain some advantage in the global economy and leadership in global geopolitical affairs, the federal government must invest substantially more in fundamental research and development as well as domestic scientific, technical, and physical infrastructure than we do today. These all require a more robust federal revenue stream in addition to more efficient and responsible spending.

What To Do?

It is critical that the US both trim federal spending and at the same time raise revenues. The time to start is now. My goal here in this section is to identify potential opportunities to reduce spending as well as secure new revenue streams. Everything I list here is conceptual in nature, but is the kind of changes we must make if we want to move toward a balanced budget. At the same time few of these conceptual changes could occur immediately. A comprehensive revision of the federal budget would need to be designed and implemented gradually over a fairly long period of time, say 10 years, to allow the economy to adapt to a new paradigm and avoid economic catastrophe.

Some, most, or all the ideas I offer below may be required to reach a healthy sustainable national economic and geopolitical framework for the United States in the twenty-first century. I also recognize that often what appears to be spending cuts to some will look like tax increases to others. Following are possible changes to federal spending and tax policies that I propose must be explored for the long term health of our democracy:

  • Completely rewrite the US tax code to be much simpler and to eliminate or dramatically reduce potential “loopholes” for imaginative tax avoidance squelch opportunities for evasion of tax liability.
  • Develop and implement means testing for SS payments to retirees.
  • Increase the age at which retirees can draw SS payments.
  • Charge SS tax on all employee payroll earnings. Currently a SS tax of 6.2% is levied only on the first $160,200 of payroll earnings.
  • Charge SS tax on all individual income regardless of its source.
  • Return to a substantially more progressive income tax policy. Starting in the mid-30s and ending in 1981 federal tax policy was used to mitigate economic inequality as well as raise federal revenue. That worked well at the time; we could return to that strategy to increase federal revenue as well as collectively benefit the broader electorate.
  • Tax all income at the same progressive rates regardless of its source.
  • Tax the income of closely held corporations (those not publicly traded) as personal income to the individual stockholders.

Other Governance Challenges

This discussion has been limited to the annual federal deficit and exploding national debt crisis. Separately however, the US has other structural flaws to deal with at the same time if it hopes to remain a leader in the free world. And of course addressing them will also require federal funding.

Liberal democracy is a work in process in every country practicing or aspiring to such principles. As societies advance socially, what might have been considered too liberal a few decades ago are not even adequate standards for today’s national social character. That has never been clearer than it is today if one compares the US social systems with those in other developed countries.

Among those structural challenges the US national government faces are:

  • How to implement an economical universal healthcare system that meets the needs of the entire electorate. The current free market system serves the wealthy element of our society very well; but it leaves most Americans inadequately covered, overpaying for the service, and unsatisfied with the results. On top of that US life expectancy remains below and infant mortality above the levels measured in other developed countries.
  • How to provide and fund public tuition-free education/training beyond high school. This particular issue will become more critical as advancing technology requires a better trained and skilled work force. A high school education is no longer enough to meet the needs of business and industry in this century. The Nordic Countries have generally done a good job of meeting those needs. They could be good starting roll models for addressing this deficiency.
  • How to develop and implement a rational immigration system. We need a system that attracts and makes it easy for the brightest and best educated to immigrate to and make the US their permanent home. We also need a workable program for temporary agriculture and other seasonal workers to be employed in the US. And finally we need a fair system for allocating a manageable annual number of immigrant visas from across the world.
  • We must more forcefully address systemic racism and sexism in economic, social, educational, business, and industrial equality of opportunity.

These elements of liberal democracy are not getting enough serious attention from politicians today. Left inadequately addressed they will continue to drag down the American collective quality of life, economic competitiveness and growth in the global economy, and our geopolitical status in the world order. I may have more to say on some of these subjects later.

Mark

Summer 2023 Book Reviews

Following are brief reviews of some of the current books I have been reading over the summer of 2023:

1.)  America’s Cultural Revolution – How the radical left conquered everything – Christopher F. Rufo

The author does a good job of accurately presenting the violent behavior and rhetoric of several of the more extreme characters leading the political and racial unrest of the ‘60s. He also correctly reports that as violent tactics fell out of favor, the civil rights movement shifted its strategy toward social influence, initially toward academia.

But then he uses this factual history along with today’s social media reality to promote the idea of a vast successful conspiracy to subvert American public institutions and even the electorate. He claims that this “socialist/communist” dogma first took over the universities and has since spread to education at all levels, government at all levels, the media, and even corporate executives, directors, and shareholders.

Sadly, the author’s only focus seems to be staking out territory in extreme right wing politics. He never considers the possible validity of the goals, objectives, or demands of the civil rights movement. And of course he does not acknowledge that any societal inequality requires attention, or that maybe what he calls a conspiracy could simply be addressing those issues.

2.)  Woke, Inc. – Inside corporate America’s social justice scam – Vivek Ramaswamy

I know the author is brilliant and wealthy; and I suspect his run for the presidency is mostly just because he wants public attention. Regardless, if there is a central theme to his book, it seems to be that capitalism is failing in America. He claims that corporations’ only responsibility is to maximize profits for shareholders. He expresses offense at the very idea that capitalists should consider that they may have some broader social responsibility to the society that protects them and in which they operate.

The thing that came across to me in reading his material is his extreme authoritarian tone. He is effectively a Trump clone who wants to believe that the US President has, or should have, near dictatorial power to rule as he/she sees fit.

Another clear reality is that Mr. Ramaswamy is very conscious and proud of his ruling class roots in India. He appears to aspire to be recognized as a member of some special upper class in the United States as well. I think the value of his book is in recognizing how dangerous he could be to our democracy if he were elected or appointed to a public position of power.

3.)  Christian Supremacy – Reckoning with the Roots of Antisemitism and Racism – Magda Teter

This book is a striking indictment of the Christian Church for its promotion of hate, intolerance, and corruption beginning in the 4th century CE when it was made the official religion of the Roman empire. The author documents the history in stunning detail (using the actual writings of Church leaders themselves) the brutality of the Church through the ages from then until now.

The author documents the Church’s centuries of advancing the religious doctrine that Jews are intended to be subservient to Christians. She tracks how that Christian doctrinal concept of Jewish inferiority became inscribed in law. That in turn created social and legal structures that reinforce a sense of Christian dominance, superiority, and intolerance that is still common, maybe even prevalent, in white Christian dogma today.

Ms. Teter also documents how the Christian Church was pivotal in supporting the colonial interests of European governments by providing religious authority for kidnapping, enslavement, and exploitation of people of color sent to the Americas. That legacy of hate and intolerance still taints the worldview of Christians to this day.

This book, more than any other I have read, demonstrates how theological and legal frameworks created by the church centuries ago has created the antisemitism and anti-Black racism we are living with today. It demonstrates why Christian identity lies at the heart of the world’s violent white supremacy movements. And lest readers think this indictment is only of the Catholic Church before the Renaissance, think again. The author documents the same white Christian supremacy argument from both Catholic and Protestant church leaders today.

4.)  The Ballot and The Bible – Kaitlyn Schiess

The author explores and documents how the Bible has been used to justify political actions in America from its earliest days. She starts the discussion focused on the early 17th century with John Winthrop as a key character. She looks at how politicians from that early time and throughout American history have manipulated biblical scripture, often without associated historical context, to support whatever political position they were promoting at the time.

Specifically, the author follows how American patriots used scripture to support their revolt against Britain. While at the same time, she documents how the loyalists were using different scripture to justify remaining colonies of the British Empire.

In similar fashion the author explores the use of the Bible to support both pro-slavery and anti-slavery political positions during the Civil War. She continues the history lesson through the scriptural contortions during the Jim Crow era, the Civil Rights struggle, and ultimately through the politics of the late 20th and the first couple decades of the 21st centuries.

Ms Schiess does a good job of describing and explaining how the Bible is commonly used to promote various conflicting political positions. Though the book has a bit more of a religious narrative than I usually read, it gives significant insight into the bending, twisting, and manipulation of scripture for political ends that should be valuable to both religious and non-religious readers in this time of great political polarity.

5.)  Being White, Being Good – Barbara Applebaum

The central theme of this book is:  White Americans tend to be complicit in maintaining systemic racism in our society. The author dedicates significant effort to explaining that complicity is not the same as direct guilt. She further suggests that most white people don’t even know that they are being complicit or that their behavior is perpetuating systems of racism. She advances the proposition that whiteness itself defines acceptable social standards by which people of color are judged, conveys privilege to that dominant class, and assigns a kind of moral innocence to white Americans that is not granted to people who are not white.

Throughout the book the author discusses the mechanisms white people use either consciously or otherwise to reject the idea that they could possibly be complicit. She explores the claim of ignorance or denial of complicity as common defenses white people use. She also presents “complicity pedagogy” as a teaching method to help students recognize their own complicity and take responsibility. 

I share the author’s view that systemic racism is prevalent in American society. I chose to read this book in the hope that it would teach me how to discuss that subject in an objective non-confrontational way. The unfortunate reality for me is that I don’t think the author’s intended audience is laypeople like me. I got a lot out of it, but the book was not as useful to me as it probably is to professionals in the social sciences.

Mark

Biden Ignored Me But Did Well Anyway

In an earlier post I included a letter to the editor which I wrote in 2019 suggesting Joe Biden should not run for President in 2020. While at that time I feared he could not win, I am so thankful he ran and did win. I don’t think any American politician in either party could have repaired the diplomatic and military relationship with the European community after the Trump era the way Biden has. That is particularly true given the stress of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

And though average Americans don’t see it yet, President Biden has had a similarly successful domestic legislative agenda including major infrastructure initiatives, bringing high tech manufacturing back to America, and negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies to name three. Those benefits will make a major impact in the future, but probably mostly after the 2024 election.

While Biden’s current poll numbers do not reflect his success, and he could be seriously in danger of loosing re-election to the four times indicted Trump I predict history will reflect quite favorably on the Biden Presidency.

And the most amazing part of his presidency is that he was successful in spite of ignoring all my best political advice after he secured the nomination in 2020. Following is a letter I wrote directly to him recommending key candidates he should tap for leadership positions in his potential new Administration that could give him the best chance of winning the election and successfully governing afterwards.

****************************************

May 7, 2020

Joseph R. Biden

American Possibilities

918 Pennsylvania Avenue S.E.

Washington, DC 20003

Dear Vice President Biden,

Enclosed please find a contribution to your presidential election campaign. At the same time I want to offer my opinion regarding your choice of a vice presidential running mate and other potential appointments.

While there are many good women candidates for Vice President, the current bet here in Ohio seems to be that you will chose Kamala Harris as your running mate. I think that would be a mistake. Ms Harris is likely qualified for consideration, but I think she brings “baggage” you don’t need. She comes across as militant and abrasive in public; that will turn off many independents and even some Republicans whose support you need to court. She would, however, make a dynamite Attorney General in my opinion.

Probably the most qualified woman to become President on day one would be Susan Rice. Her resume of experience should put her on any short list for Vice President. However, she would probably also be a polarizing figure because of the Benghazi debacle. Her professional style is also strong and direct. Those are intimidating qualities for lots of old white men voters. I would strongly support her nomination to be Secretary of State. I don’t think you could do better.

I think for political balance and support from liberal Democrats, you need to offer Elizabeth Warren an obvious position of power in your administration; she is probably too liberal for moderate elements of the Democratic Party to accept as Vice President, let alone independents and disgruntled Republicans. I suggest, though, she could be a powerhouse as Health and Human Services Secretary, or perhaps even better as a Strategic Presidential Advisor whose team is tasked with delivering plans for universal healthcare, mitigating economic inequality, garnering public support for such plans, and shepherding the associated legislation through Congress.

If it were my choice I would select Amy Klobuchar as your Vice Presidential running mate. She has a significant record of working across the aisle on critical legislation. When the Trump nightmare is over you are going to desperately need the partnership she could bring. She can help you (and Elizabeth Warren) deliver new legislation critical to infrastructure investment, climate change mitigation, economic inequality, as well as universal healthcare legislation. She is also from the Midwest where she could help you win over the electorate in some critical states in that part of the country. Finally, but especially, she could complement you in defining and bringing the country together around a common national vision and strategy.

This is a unique election season with social distancing required, unemployment exploding, tens of thousands hospitalized and dying of the virus, and a President playing for reality show-like ratings. I encourage you to make your VP choice known soon, before the convention. I also would encourage you to publicly identify your nominees for critical cabinet positions and key advisors well before the election so voters can begin to see the kind of people a rational government will employ in vital positions.

Thank you,

Mark Mathys

340 W Goodale Street

Columbus, Ohio 43215

markmathys@icloud.com

864 378 4811