Power, Politics & Scholarship

[bemildred]

Some interesting bits, I just picked one.
---

JH: Can you give an example of an issue over which the US administration and the lobby clashed, and the US overruled them?

NF: You saw, for example, 1991, with this whole issue with this guy Shamir. They really couldn't stand Shamir; he was absolutely obnoxious, Yitzhak Shamir. I think they called him ‘That little shit.' He was this ideologue, very provincial, and he was very insistent about being in your face, about expanding the settlements. Well, there's the famous scene. The ask for the ten-billion dollar loan, in 1991, in order to subsidize the settlement of the Russian Jews. Bush said no, and then he has the famous scene in Capitol Hill, he said, ‘It's just one lonely guy - me -- against thousands of lobbyists.' And everyone knew who he was talking about, he was talking about AIPAC and ‘The Jews'. It's very interesting what happened; the lobby did nothing. No Senators wanted to go on board - AIPAC was trying to push through a bill, denouncing Bush, because he was ‘making an obvious allusion to Jews undermining US national interests' - Senators didn't want to sign it; no. They knew - Bush, Baker - now, they're serious. And shut up. You know the next thing that happened? Shamir was defeated, because the Israelis knew too. This guy getting in face, they didn't like it, time to get rid of him. The speech by Bush was in February; June was the election in Israel; Shamir was out.

When the US feels like they have business to do, everyone falls into line. The lobby falls into line, Congress falls into line, and even the Israelis fall into line. When it's down to the crunch, everyone falls into line. It's also interesting -- just as a side note -- because I'm reading the Aaron David Miller book. You may know that the entire negotiating team of the US, in its meetings with the Palestinians, they were all Jewish - Malley, Miller, Ross - they were all Jewish. And there's all this talk about how these people are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States. You know of these insinuations. It's total nonsense. First of all, remember: people like Ross and Miller, they all worked for Baker and Bush, and Baker and Bush were supposedly ‘the anti-Semites', very hostile to Israel.

I was very struck - Miller's a complete imbecile, of that there can be no question - what struck me is really interesting. There was a famous line by Baker. He was told, ‘If you block the ten-billion dollar loan, you're going to lose the Jews in the next election.' And the famous line which everyone quotes is - and Baker replied, "Fuck the Jews." It struck me. Miller -- and is a ‘tell all' - doesn't mention it. All he does is praise Baker; ‘Baker is tough, Baker is not an anti-Semite.' These people are completely loyal, faithful servants of power. The notion they're working for Israel - the Mearsheimer/Walt thing - is totally crazy. Ross, in 1988, he worked for Bush's election. He only came to Clinton as a hangover from Bush and Baker. There isn't one word of criticism of Bush and Baker - and this was supposedly the ‘anti-Semitic' administration. And I was waiting...is he going to quote the thing from Baker? Do you know the line? Do you remember it?

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/17229

[ProgressiveMuslim]

1. Isn't that the single example of the US *not* folding to AIPAC? nt

[bemildred]

2. It is not really the only one. US policy towards Israel has run hot and cold.

Anti-semitism was almost de rigeur when I was a boy here. In any case it was ubiquitous.

Remember Jimmy Carter. He is still hated. With a bit of thought, I'm sure I could come up with others (Baker and Zbig come to mind).

It really is not correct that AIPAC runs US foreign policy, although they do have a lot of influence and are a nasty enemy to deal with. But US politics in general is a very dirty business.

What is going on now with the Neocons concerns me somewhat because I think there is a very good chance of an anti-semitic backlash when all of these fatuous policies that are being pursued with such diligence go belly up. There are two threads in US political history, and one of them is a very racist white-men-first xenophobia. Although we have made great progress in the last 2 generations, the latter strain is by no means cowed or defeated.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

3. What are some other examples of AIPAC going to the mat and the US going

against them and winning?

[bemildred]

4. I can't really, that doesn't happen.

Or at least I can't think of any overt, public cases like that. But it is not correct to think that that is because AIPAC is more powerful than the US ruling elites in determining US foreign policy.

There are any number of public snits between the two, but not in the form you suggest, again Baker and Zbig come to mind, plus the Liberty, Pollard, and other bugaboos of that sort. Carter certainly has told them to shove off a number of times. It isn't all just one big happy family. Truman, for example, was very pro-Israel, later pResidents were not. With Raygun, things got very "pro-Israel" again. Bush the elder is viewed as "less helpful". One should not assume because AIPAC is riding high now that it was always so, or that it will always be so. AIPAC is a political pressure group, it's real power lies in the political arena, elections and so on, providing money and propaganda for and against various elected politicians, and as I said, the presence of overt windbags like Bolton etc. appears to me to be a dangerous development.

Edit: ah, well, US relations with the Saudis comes to mind, in particular the selling of arms to the Saudis and other Arab states, and conditions put on sale of US arms to Israel. AIPAC is not allowed to interfere in the oil bidness or the arms bidness much. Iran-Contra comes to mind too, but the Israelis have on a number of occasions been willing to deal with Iran under the table.

Edit: and the US has always more or less opposed the settlements. At this very time the Bushites appear to be applying a good deal of pressure on that subject, and are largely immune from criticism or attack for doing that, and then there is the question of Jerusalem. But neither side "goes to the mat" over it, differences of opinion do tend to get ignored or left for later, like all the other issues that are central to any possible resolution of the situation. "Delay is denial", but it is not agreement.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

5. So the example is the only one in recent years...

And the lesson was clear.

Don't fuck with AIPAC.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

6. How are the bushites applying pressure in the settlement arena?

Didn't a report just come out that they gave a wink and a nod, allowing Israel to further their settlement agenda before any settlement talks?

[bemildred]

8. Recent example, first I googled up:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3526119,00.html

Another:

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/April_2008/0804052.html

The fact that not much effective has been done (yet) does not mean there is agreement, or that nothing ever will be done. The fact that the US is not willing to put it's foot down is not an indication that it cannot. The obsessive focus on US politics in Israel is well-founded. But we do not have to agree, I can see why the situation annoys you.

Edit: Is "peace settlement" an oxymoron?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

12. Talk is cheap (on the part of the respective gov'ts). Cheap and

meaningless.

The settlement machines grinds on. That the US *could* do something is meaningless if it never does.

Seriously, there has been one example in the past 20 years (the loan guarantees in the early 90s) in which the US has put its foot down.

IMO, the point of the OP is to discredit Miller, who came out and put Dennis Ross' pro-Israel historical account into question.

[bemildred]

14. Well, he certainly doesn't like Miller. Calls him an imbecile. nt

[msmcghee]

7. Just a small comment.

Any politics where there are billions of dollars being moved around, potentially taken out of someone's pocket and ending up in another's - is dirty business. In my experience such dirty business operates at much lower dollar amounts than billions. This is true about any business or human endeavor - not just government. And money is not even necessary if there are other tokens of power and success to be acquired.

CEO's who run publicly held corporations are 100% political animals. If they last in power for any length of time it's because they have the dirty politics firmly under their control. That doesn't mean that they are bad people, personally. It just means that they understand power and politics and how to use them and they spend their working life (and much of their personal life) maintaining that end of the equation. The moment they relax their grip on that power there are others waiting for that to happen - who will gladly step in and engineer their removal - using dirty politics.

There's nothing particularly American about this - it is human, not "American" nature at work. If anything, Americans are more naive about this than people in other places. We are so clueless because money is relatively easy to acquire here. Almost any kid in a third world country understands how these things work better than most American adults.

[bemildred]

9. Thank you for straightening that out. nt

[msmcghee]

11. No problem. It was the "American" part where I thought . .

. . your comment could benefit from another perspective. I saw it as adding that perspective to the discussion - rather than straightening anything out. Your comments on AIPAC are informative and providing me with a perspective that I hadn't thought about much.

[bemildred]

13. American politics was what was under discussion.

I wasn't intending to single us out.

[msmcghee]

15. Thanks for straightening that out.

It was the, "But US politics in general is a very dirty business." that made me think you were "singling us out". It's not an important point - but I think if you had said "But politics in general is a very dirty business." - it would not have jumped out at me as it did.

BTW - This is an interesting interview on many levels. I've seen excerpts from it but I never sat down and read the whole thing before. Thanks for posting it.

[bemildred]

16. But it isn't dirty everywhere, or all the time.

You are right to the extent that it tends to become dirty when lots of power and money are at stake.

[msmcghee]

18. Then I must ask . .

. . do you think there is something exceptionally dirty about American politics? And if so, why is that?

[bemildred]

19. Yes, because there is a lot of power and money at stake.

Most empires tend to wind up like that, for that reason.

[msmcghee]

21. That's true - there is a . .

. . lot of power and money at stake here. But, that doesn't necessarily equate to dirtier politics than in places where not so much power and money is at stake - which was the question of "relative ugliness" that I posed.

Having personal political power is one way that males end up having better choices and opportunities to reproduce. I think it's instinctive and those who have stronger political instincts and exhibit better skills at it generally end up running things in the world.

I'd suggest that "America's ugliness and/or ruthlessness in foreign policy" is a just a favorite meme of the left that becomes especially useful when a RW administration is in power. I've seen some pretty ugly politics played out in the homeowners association where I live - people's integrity smeared, humiliations, enemies made, personal hatreds.

I'm not trying to say you are wrong. Just adding another perspective. But, I would be interested in seeing some evidence that supports your view that Americans are particularly dirtier politicians than say Mexican or Darfurian or Phillipino or politicians in other states where not so much money and power is at stake - if you wish to pursue this further. The reason I'm interested is that when I first came to DU I also thought there was something exceptional about the left in terms of purity of purpose and respect for principles over ruthless politics. I thought that dirty politics was a RW franchise. I'm afraid I've pretty much changed my mind on that. I now see politics as simply the game that's played by those who are the players. If someone gets to a position of power and keeps it for a while - it's because they played well. On average, Americans are probably worse players than politicians in third world countries.

[bemildred]

22. I didn't say that, so I don't see why I should defend it.

I just agreed with the notion that US politics is "exceptionally dirty", I didn't single any other countries out for comparison. After all, this is the place I know best.

Edit: fixing the quote.

[msmcghee]

23. I keep saying I'm just comparing perspectives.

I'm not disagreeing - so don't feel like you have to defend anything. I described my beliefs and what they are based on. I was just curious as to what your beliefs on this are based on. You know, trying to see if there's something I failed to consider.

On edit: "Exceptionally dirty" kind of implies a comparison with something that you know something about - in order to justify the comparison.

[bemildred]

24. "Exceptionally dirty" does imply comparison, but not with anything in particular.

There has to be something which is not "exceptionally dirty" somewhere for it to make sense. Of course if you go too far with everything being "exceptionally dirty" than you wind up backwards, and the proper thing would be to note that one or a few things are "exceptionally clean". So, from that, you can infer correctly that I consider that the US political system is dirtier than most. But this is pounding nails with a sledgehammer.

I suspect you are far more interested in analyzing this subject than I am, so I will leave you to it.

[LeftishBrit]

25. In my (non-American) view: Americans have more influence over the world -for good or for ill- than

most other countries. It's not that American politicians are more ruthless or corrupt; indeed, there are many countries with politicians that are more corrupt, ruthless and murderous than most American politicians: e.g. Mugabe, or the leadership of Burma. However, when American politicians are ruthless, they can harm or kill more people than politicians in a small state with little influence.

In the days of the Soviet Union, the Russian leaders certainly had plenty of nasty influence on other countries. The current Russian leaders tend to be pretty ruthless and corrupt, with quite a few links to organized crime, but they no longer have so much power outside their own country. The British imperialists were pretty ruthless (though possibly not as corrupt overall as some others); but they lost most of their power in the 1940s. Etcetera.

So I think that when American leaders get more criticism, it's not so much that they actually are worse, or are even perceived as worse, than many others, but that what they do affects more people.

[msmcghee]

26. I'd agree that generally, American politicians . .

. . have more influence over other countries - because they affect more people with their decisions and foreign policies than politicians from countries that don't have as much wealth to pass around or military power to push. But, that would be true about any state's politicians - that their influence would be in proportion to that state's wealth and power and how much of that wealth and power they had access to.

I was questioning the implication in his statement that there is something intrinsically more evil about American politicians - than politicians from other places. I believe the words he used were "exceptionally dirty". That's a progressive meme that's quite common here. I was trying to see if there is any real basis for it.

How about you? From a LeftishBrit's perspective, do you think that American politicians are more "exceptionally dirty" than other politicians in the world? (To help, I'd say that "exceptionally dirty" would include the far end of the evil scale on things like general corruption, influence peddling, bribery and abuse of personal and state power.)

[LeftishBrit]

27. No, once you control for amount of power...

I don't think they are more dirty than those in many countries. Even if you stick to democracies, Berlusconi is probably as dirty as they come - he can do less harm than Cheney, but is probably about as evil a human being. However, Bush and Cheney, because of their power were able to start a war; Blair and Berlusconi merely to abet and support it.

At the risk of sounding chauvinistic, I *do* think that British politicians are *less* dirty on the whole than American ones, or those of most countries. That doesn't mean they're better politically; but they seem to be better at sticking to legal and (in a broad sense) ethical practices. I can only think of two high-level British politicians who ended up in prison for corruption in recent years, though probably a few more should have done! We've had our 'sleaze' from time to time; but it's usually been on a fairly petty level. (The Robert Maxwell scandal of a while ago was a noted exception.) I'm sure that just because I've said this, an enormous scandal will suddenly break in Britain!

[bemildred]

10. By the way, thanks for kicking this.

I thought it was a very interesting interview and it gave me a whole different perspective on Finkelstein, so I'm glad to be able to discuss it.

[azurnoir]

17. Thank you or posting this

I am curious though about your comment on Norman Finklestein a different perspective how, it truly solidified mine?

[bemildred]

20. It's like this:

There are quite a few people on both sides of this issue that are making quite a good living off it by being vehemently on one side or the other, I won't mention any so as not to gore any sacred cows. I had more or less categorized Finkelstein in that group. I had never actually read him in his own words, you see. But here he shows himself well spoken and coherent, with something to say. So while he may still be in that group, I think better of him as someone worth reading.