Monthly Archives: April 2016

Open Letter to the Dean of Harvard Law Regarding the School’s Improper handling of an anti-Semitic outburst

harvard

Dear Dean Minnow,

Since you do not know me let me start by telling you that I am clearly not as smart as you are.    I do not have a Harvard education of any sort nor do I hold a law degree from anywhere.  So it goes without saying that I am not on the intellectual level of the Dean of Harvard Law School.  What I am is a man who writes books, articles and letters that are sometimes appealing enough to get the attention of an audience. So naturally there is nothing I can teach someone who runs something as prestigious as your institution. Or so it would seem.

As someone who has the responsibility of seeing to it that your school maintains some degree of integrity and credibility, how is that you have chosen to protect the identity of a blatant anti-Semite?  The old axiom, it’s what you do, not what you say, is very much at the heart of this problem.  For Harvard Law to openly come out and condemn the actions of someone interrupting the former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni not with respectful argument and discourse, but by calling her “smelly”,  is merely a first step on the part of your institution, a step very much wiped out by your unwillingness to disclose the individuals name.  To make matters worse, the university apparently deleted a portion of a video showing the alleged culprit, Husam El-Coolaq making his rude and classless attack.  I know you are smarter than I am, we’ve already established that, but to take me and others like me for fools by condemning the statements while protecting the individual responsible for the statements is not only an insult to the principals of Jews and Zionists worldwide, it is also an insult to our intelligence.

Perhaps if you imagine this being done in reverse you would have an easier time dealing with this correctly, since apparently academia today seems to favor the plight of the Palestinians over the fair treatment of Israel and the Jewish people.  In the meantime I would like to take this opportunity to tell you that this type of behavior on the part of Harvard Law does nothing to distinguish the institution over any other institution, at least not in any positive manner.

If you are to help form minds to defend all that is right, I urge you to start by taking this opportunity to do what is correct rather than succumb to the pressure or agenda of those who are hijacking institutions of higher learning through a perversion of the truth or possibly even worse through a greater amount of funding.  If you do that, Harvard Law may just distinguish itself from other failing or mediocre institutions and continue to educate and prepare great minds in defense of the law.

Sincerely,

David Groen

LIKE THIS POST? SHARE IT ON FACEBOOK OR TWITTER

HOW TO BUY THE BOOK

READ MORE OF WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IN THE DAILY COLUMN

JOIN “THE GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL” ON FACEBOOK

GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL IS NOW ON TWITTER @gcimovement

IN CONJUNCTION WITH GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL

 

Advertisements

God’s Disproportionate Response to Egypt

10p

Despite the fact that many consider the Old Testament to be a man-made fabrication, billions of people worldwide do indeed believe it to be an authentic accounting of what took place thousands of years ago.  With so much of the world’s violence revolving around religious belief and doctrine, the lessons learned from the Bible are indeed relevant today, if for no other reason than the fact that people believe it to be true.  As the Jewish holiday of Passover approaches, the story of the enslavement of the Jewish people in Egypt is front and center.  In a time when Israel’s response to violence is once again being challenged by those who either wish her destruction, feel passivity will lead to peace, or look to appease the enemy, the story of Passover has become even more relevant.  When the statement is made that Israel’s retaliation to violence is a Disproportionate Response, the question one has to ask, especially this time of year is, was God’s reaction to Egypt subsequently a Disproportionate Response as well?

To get a better idea of whether or not this is the case one needs to know a little bit about the history as it is appears in the Bible.  The story starts with the Jewish people being seen as a threat to Egypt by the country’s new  King or “Pharoah”. His concern was that the Jews were multiplying too quickly and becoming too strong, therefore posing a threat to Egyptian society.  Despite the fact that they had done nothing to warrant these suspicions, the Jews were felt to be such a growing danger that they were enslaved, forced to do hard labor, and made to build ostentatious and glorious cities for Egypt’s Pharoah. When their number continued to increase, the Pharoah decreed that all newborn Jewish males should be thrown into the Nile River.  Moses, a child that would survive this systematic murder of Jewish male children, would ultimately be the man who would lead the Jews out of slavery. However, not before the Egyptians would go through tremendous suffering of their own.

When Moses ascended to his leadership role of the Jewish people he ultimately stood before the Egyptian leader and in the name of God implored him to “Let my people Go!”  When the Pharoah refused, God decided to punish the Egyptians with a variety of plagues.  The water turned to blood, the land would be infested with swarms of locusts, there would be a debilitating darkness, and the people and cattle would be cursed with boils and lice, just to name a few of the hardships God brought upon the Egyptian people. Was this fair?  Was it right for the Egyptians to suffer so tremendously merely because the Pharoah wanted to maintain his labor force? After all, the Jews who were allowed to live were  given enough food and shelter to survive.  Their social structure was kept in tact enough that men and women were able to get together and multiply to the point where they were deemed a threat.  Was it really fair for God to come down so hard on the Egyptians?  Did they deserve to suffer on such a high level merely because they would not let the Jewish people break out of their generations of bondage and suffering?  By today’s standards certainly not.  Today every level of injustice is measured with some sort of bias, often in favor of those committing the injustice.  But if you believe the story of Passover, the injustices committed by the Egyptians against the Children of Israel were not going to go unpunished by the most powerful being of all, God.

When Pharoah still refused to let the Jewish people go, the suffering would reach it’s pinnacle.  All of Egypts first born sons would be killed unless the Jews were freed. Pharoah in his arrogance and stubbornness refused to capitulate, causing the death of countless numbers of Egyptians sons, the most notable of which would be the son of the Pharoah himself.  Was all this necessary merely because the Jewish people were living as slaves?  Seeing as there was no United Nations back then there was certainly no governing body to condemn what was happening, but even if there had been, what were they going to do, condemn God?  Maybe, you never know.

When the Pharoah finally gave in, for a large part due to his own immense suffering at the loss of his child, he actually had second thoughts and sent his army after the Jews as they fled Egypt.  Up to the last moment, as the Jews were escaping Egypt, God would still cause suffering on the Egyptian people, causing multitudes of soldiers to be engulfed and washed away to their death in the Red Sea.  All this just so the Jews would live as free people.  All this suffering that befell the Egyptians truly must be seen as a Disproportionate Response on the part of the Almighty, should it not?

Of course the truth is a simple one.  If this did indeed happen as it is portrayed in the Old Testament, these harsh “Disproportionate Responses” were actions by God in defense and protection of the Jewish people.  But regardless of whether it was the Jews or anyone else, the message it sends is that taking away the freedom of an entire nation is indeed a crime punishable by great suffering.  If a people are being attacked or enslaved by another group of people, attacks against those that enslave them, persecute them, or murder them are not only acceptable, they are warranted.  Attacks against those who threaten a people’s sovereignty are warranted, regardless of whether or not the United Nations, the European community, or the likes of a Bernie Sanders find it to be acceptable behavior.

If man is truly created in God’s image, then there is no such thing as Disproportionate Response against those that wish to wipe out a nation.  If no other lesson is to be learned from Passover, this is one that should be, especially in the world in which we live today.

LIKE THIS POST? SHARE IT ON FACEBOOK OR TWITTER

HOW TO BUY THE BOOK

READ MORE OF WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IN THE DAILY COLUMN

JOIN “THE GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL” ON FACEBOOK

GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL IS NOW ON TWITTER @gcimovement

IN CONJUNCTION WITH GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL

 


Make America Grape (Slurpees) Again

20130703-Crush_Grape_Slurpee_Birthday_Cups_800

I fully expect for Kayleigh Mcenany to appear on CNN later and say this is what Trump was trying to say when he confused 9/11 and 7/11.  Or it could just be that he was trying to say that Muslims are responsible for both.  

LIKE THIS POST? SHARE IT ON FACEBOOK OR TWITTER

HOW TO BUY THE BOOK

READ MORE OF WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IN THE DAILY COLUMN

JOIN “THE GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL” ON FACEBOOK

GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL IS NOW ON TWITTER @gcimovement

IN CONJUNCTION WITH GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL


The Political Front Whiners

_88650797_sanderstrump

Be honest.  When the dirty player is on your team you tend to look past the dirty tactics. You may occasionally make a veiled attempt at objectivity, but even when you do, you do it with a mischievous grin.  After all, a few fouls here and there are OK if the player has the skill to back it up.  Especially if that skill translates into a victory for your team. All the discussions and debates taking place within both parties regarding the presidential nomination process are really no different.  Contested convention? Just fine if you don’t want to see Trump be the Republican nominee.  Super Delegates? Thank the Lord they’re out there if you’re a Hillary Clinton supporter or feeling the Bern is something you would otherwise equate with the need for penicillin.

It’s the hottest thing, everyone’s talking about it.  Those would be the words Donald Trump might, and probably has used to describe the discussion taking place about the possibility of a Contested or Brokered Republican Convention.  Of course as the front runner, and the candidate almost assured at going into the Convention in Cleveland with the most delegates, Trump and his supporters are already crying foul  at the prospect of anything other than his coronation as the nominee.  Problem is, not only is no one breaking any laws, unlike the athlete that does commit a foul, no one is even breaking the rules that exist within the private institution that is the Republican Party.

Same thing with the Democrats.  Although there are many Bernie Sanders supporters getting increasingly exuberant in their argument that foul play is going on, like it or not the Super Delegates have every right to pick whomever they want as their candidate.   In fact, the Democratic Party put these rules in place just for the purpose of stopping an  insurgent candidate like Sanders from getting the nomination.  Does it make Bernie and his people happy?  No.  Is it against the law or against the rules of the Democratic Party?  The answer to that is also a big no.

So then the next obvious question is, is this process fair?  That is when it becomes subjective.  First of all, out of the 5 candidates remaining in the process, the 2 crying foul are the ones with the most to lose, so to speak.  I say so to speak because to lose something you actually had to have had it in the first place.  Neither Donald Trump nor Bernie Sanders have their party’s nomination at this point, so to say it would be lost in either scenario is a misnomer.  The bigger question, and the one that is far more of a sensitive issue, is whether or not those who make the choice of voting for either Trump or Sanders are being disenfranchised by the process.  The way I heard one commentator describe it, and I am paraphrasing, “thanks for participating, now we’ll make the decision as to which candidate we want representing our party”.

But not so fast.  The point that people seem to be conveniently glossing over is that the only way either of these scenarios become relevant is if the people do not choose their candidate through the structured process, and like it or not the process is structured. If Donald Trump gets 1,237 delegates all talk of a Contested Convention will be over, and if Bernie Sanders is so far behind Hillary that he can only win with the Super Delegates, the nomination would actually be stolen if it were to be altered, just from Hillary rather than Bernie.

I guess if right now you like Trump or Sanders, it seems very unfair, but should they win, either through the process you hate so much or just by getting more delegates, all will be forgiven.  The reality is that the processes are what the processes are, and regardless of who gains benefit from those processes, the organizations that set them up, otherwise known as the Republican and Democratic Party, have every legal right to see them to fruition.  As long as they are willing to accept the consequences they face should many of their members feel betrayed by that process.  I guess if that happens the winning candidate will have their first real test in leadership, a test that may just decide whether or not they win the general election.

LIKE THIS POST? SHARE IT ON FACEBOOK OR TWITTER

HOW TO BUY THE BOOK

READ MORE OF WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IN THE DAILY COLUMN

JOIN “THE GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL” ON FACEBOOK

GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL IS NOW ON TWITTER @gcimovement

IN CONJUNCTION WITH GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Bernie’s Double Down on Israel is About Fear, Not Courage

160414232059-brooklyn-democratic-post-debate-bernie-sanders-8-00001427-large-169

After watching the debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, some commentators went on the record as saying they felt Senator Sanders showed courage in his continuing insistence that Israel’s military action in the most recent Gaza War was a “disproportionate response”.  Their analysis was that a Jewish politician coming to New York and taking this unpopular stance in, of all places Brooklyn, took bravery and character, regardless of whether you agree with his viewpoint or not.  The reality is, despite how it looks on the surface, nothing could be further from the truth.

I don’t blame the commentators for feeling this way.  I do recognize that when Van Jones, a journalist for CNN and an African-American showed a degree of admiration for Sanders for not backing down, he was very clear about the fact that it was whether you agree with him or not.  His admiration for his character was not an endorsement of the viewpoint.  Nevertheless, just as I can intellectually understand but not comprehend what it means to be black in America, so too Van does not understand what it is like to be the son of Holocaust survivors. Incidentally, neither does Bernie Sanders.

Even when discussing his Jewish background and experience with Israel, Senator Sanders comes across more as he is talking about them than us.  I hardly ever use the term self-hating Jews anymore, not because I don’t believe that some Jews fall into that category, but because I believe it to be inappropriate to declare what someone hates or loves unless they come right out and say it.  However, I do know that the perspective of a cultural Jew whose parents immigrated from Poland with little money is very different than a proud Jew whose parents lived through Nazi-occupation first hand. But more importantly I recognize that those who take the side of the enemy hardly ever do so because of a courage of convictions, rather they do so out of a fear so deep-rooted, they either don’t know it exists or they deny it to the world.

The enemies of the free world are dangerous and frightening people.  Most of these enemies hate America and its way of life with a passion.  To an Islamic Extremist, there is almost nothing worse than an American with American values.  Almost. The one thing worse is a Jewish American.  That’s not to be taken lightly in today’s world. After all if history proves nothing else, it proves that hatred for Jews is easily converted into violence against Jews.  Throughout time, but most notably during the time of Adolph Hitler, there were always Jews who took the side of the enemy because they felt it would save them.  The harsh reality is, that it not only ended up in the loss of their lives, it ended up in the destruction of their soul.

I have absolutely no problem with a presidential candidate speaking of the rights of Palestinians to live in dignity.  I have also gone on the record many times as being someone completely willing to blame Israel when they deserve to be blamed.  That being said, a sovereign nation defending its very right to exist and retaliating against missile attacks on its population centers by a terrorist organization is not the guilty party.  Furthermore, being a Jewish politician in America and taking the side of the terrorist organization not only does not make you an individual of courage and character, it ultimately does nothing to make you immune from those who hate the Jewish people.  All it does do is make you another typical politician pandering to a certain demographic, albeit not the demographic of those born into the same religion as you.  It also makes you a coward more than it makes you a hero.  Taking on Israel is not the same as taking on Wall Street.  Taking on Israel is easy.  In the world in which we live today, it might even help a politician get more funding, and generally speaking, and I say this with pride,pro-Israel Jews don’t commit acts of violence against those who oppose their views.  I have little doubt Bernie Sanders knows that as well.

LIKE THIS POST? SHARE IT ON FACEBOOK OR TWITTER

HOW TO BUY THE BOOK

READ MORE OF WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IN THE DAILY COLUMN

JOIN “THE GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL” ON FACEBOOK

GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL IS NOW ON TWITTER @gcimovement

IN CONJUNCTION WITH GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL

 

 


Open Letter to Bernie Sanders

bernie-sanders

Dear Senator Sanders,

I write this letter to you as someone who is deeply disturbed by your stance on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.  If I am to take you on your word, something I certainly hope is feasible due to the fact that you are a Jewish man with ties to Israel, your feelings about Israel’s right to exist are not at issue here.  What is at issue is your approach, an approach that not only feeds directly into those that wish to see Israel destroyed, but also puts not only Israel but the Jewish people worldwide in even greater danger than the one that exists today.

To be frank Senator Sanders, I find your words to be not only damaging but terribly irresponsible.  I have been following the election with great interest and have listened to as many of your speeches and soundbites as possible.  I understand that like Donald Trump, you are appealing to a populist movement of disenchanted, angry and concerned voters.  You are clearly a very intelligent and savvy politician.  I am certain that you understand that your words, even if only soundbites, influence a great number of people.  Therefore you must understand that more of your followers are likely to remember the 10,000 number you blurted out, the number of Palestinian deaths you said that Israel was responsible for in the last war in Gaza,  than they will your insistence that Israel has the right to exist in freedom and security. They will take your words and see Israel as the guilty party in the conflict, subsequently making the terrorist organization Hamas, a group very similar to ISIS in their violent and ambitious tactics, as the defenders of the freedoms and rights of the Palestinians. Just as Donald Trump’s comments on Muslims and Mexicans create a perception of all Muslims and Mexicans by many of his supporters, your comments will have the same impact on many of your supporters towards Israel and the Jewish people.  As a smart man I am sure you are aware of the fact that modern day anti-Israel sentiment has translated into a rise in worldwide anti-Semitism.

What I also believe is happening Senator Sanders is a continuing hijacking of liberalism by those who, to be quite honest, are nothing better than blatant anti-Semites.  Clearly, as an individual who speaks openly of your Jewish background I am not accusing you of hating your fellow Jews, but I am going to come right out and say that you are perpetuating the argument of those that do, and in the process putting us at greater risk.  I urge you to listen to the words of Alan Dershowitz, someone never accused of being too conservative, in his wise and educated understanding of the Arab-Israel conflict in which he says,

“whenever I speak to audiences about the Middle East, sometimes audiences very hostile to Israel, I issue one challenge.  Name a single country in the history of the world, faced with threats comparable to the threats faced by Israel, that has ever had a better record of human-rights, a better record of concern for civilians,  a better record towards the sensitivity of legal issues and the rule of law. In a 100 speeches in which I issued that challenge, no one has ever come up with a country that has a better record than Israel faced with comparable threats”.

Even if this is a miscalculation or ignorance on your part rather than a cynical attempt to pander to an audience you feel you need to win elections, your words are still damaging.  I watched the few minutes with Jake Tapper of CNN in which you discussed this issue and was quite honestly startled by how you shrugged off what you referred to as your question of whether or not it was 10,000 people killed in Gaza as not being a big deal.  Senator Sanders, it is a very big deal.   Hamas, the terrorist organization that espouses the very same stance you take of “disproportionate response” by Israel and uses it as justification to murder women and children in the streets of Israel without remorse, does so with a claim that Israel was responsible for the deaths of less than 2,000.  Well congratulations Senator, you just increased their justification more than five fold.   After all, if an American presidential candidate and a Jew from Brooklyn wonders if it was 10,000 people, Hamas might not only be correct, they might be understating the number.

What makes this worse is the fact that you would say that Israel is responsible for these deaths in the first place.  I am far more open minded than you might think.  I recognize the fact that Israel does things wrong and needs to work hard at changing the conditions of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.  What I also recognize however is that the main obstacle in making these changes is not the Israeli government but the terrorist groups running the show in these territories.  Millions upon millions of dollars have been squandered and stolen from the Palestinian people, not by the Israeli government but by the very people who claim to want to lead them to a better life.  In truth, these people, the very same people you have empowered with your words, are cynical and devious criminals more concerned about Israel’s destruction and their personal lot than they are about the well-being of their population.

Someone recently made the argument to me that as a Jew you need to overcompensate in order to not seem too biased on the side of Israel.  Even if I do believe that is what you were doing, the question that needs to be asked is, at what cost?  Your words mean something.  If you want to be the leader of the free world, why would you take the side of an organization that not only wants to destroy the freedom of the people of your origin, but obstruct the freedom of their own?  If it is to increase support among your constituency, you are going against the very thing you base your entire campaign on, a different kind of politics.  If you want to be a true leader, a leader that guides the country and the youth of America to a better future, I urge you to first recognize the responsibility you have towards clearly distinguishing between right and wrong.  That Senator Sanders is indeed a very big deal.

Sincerely,

David Groen

LIKE THIS POST? SHARE IT ON FACEBOOK OR TWITTER

HOW TO BUY THE BOOK

READ MORE OF WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IN THE DAILY COLUMN

JOIN “THE GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL” ON FACEBOOK

GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL IS NOW ON TWITTER @gcimovement

IN CONJUNCTION WITH GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL

 

 


The Real Reason Donald Trump is Dangerous

trumppunch

Donald Trump is right about one thing.  More people are talking about this year’s presidential primaries than any time in history.  One could argue this is partly due to the fact that we are dealing with a polarizing populist with a one syllable name.  As the primaries continue, the feelings towards Republican candidate Donald Trump are becoming more and more intense on both sides.  By now most people either love him or hate him.  He’s been called a racist, misogynist, another Hitler, Mussolini, demagogue, fascist, you name it, he’s been called it.  Who and what Donald Trump is has become the most talked about issue, not just in American politics, but in the entire country. It’s even transcended American politics, becoming a discussion all over the world where the big question being asked is, “what if he wins?” Of course a lot of this discussion is rooted in fear. Even a lot of the people who like him have at least some trepidation. So the obvious question is whether or not we actually should be afraid of Donald Trump. The short and definitive answer is yes, just not necessarily for the reasons most often discussed.

While most people think the most frightening thing about him is his behavior and demeanor, something certainly a cause for at least some concern, I believe the thing we should be most worried about is far more significant.  When people speak about Trump being anti-establishment they are generally referring to his developing battle against the Republican establishment.  That in itself might be fine to everyone other than members of the actual Republican establishment.  Their fear is based more on their personal status than the future of the country.  The thing we as a nation really need to be worried about is far more serious than the damage being done to the GOP and its high-ranking members. What we need to be concerned with is how Donald Trump is trying to change a lot more than the Republican establishment, he is looking to change the entire American establishment. If that doesn’t scare you, it should.

A perfect example of what Trump is doing can be seen in the impact he is having on the media.  The actions and words of Donald Trump and members of his campaign together with the polarization his candidacy is causing has often created a situation journalists and members of the press universally try to avoid, and that is those reporting the news becoming the story.  The most notable example is Megyn Kelly of FOX.   Kelly is a consummate professional very adept at reporting the news while never actually becoming the news. But the following exchange with Donald Trump in a debate last August 6th did just that, not so much because of Trump’s response at the debate, but because of his subsequent behavior and comments towards Kelly since.

Kelly: “You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs,’ and ‘disgusting animals.’ Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president?”

Trump: “What I say is what I say. And honestly, Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry, I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be, based on the way you have treated me. But I wouldn’t do that to you.”

 

As we all know by now, Trump went back on his word and did indeed do that t0 her.  If we want to be fair and say that Kelly was particularly hard on Trump at the debate, we can go one step further and say that Trump’s response was appropriate and fair.  But it did not end there.   That was just the beginning of a continuing onslaught  as he went on to repeatedly refer to her as Crazy Megyn Kelly on Twitter, and calling her names like “sick” or “overrated”.  Nothing however was more bizarre than the line, “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever …”.  All of this was punctuated by a call by Trump Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski to FOX prior to a later debate in which he basically threatened Kelly by saying, she had a ‘rough couple of days after that last debate’ and he ‘would hate to have her go through that again.’ 

Then of course there’s the  Michelle Fields incident.  Regardless of whether or not one believes Fields is right or wrong, it was without doubt, Trump’s subsequent handling of the situation that truly made her the story.  After Fields accused Trump’s campaign manager of manhandling and injuring her to prevent her from getting close to his boss, rather than deal with it swiftly and tactfully, Trump decided to once again go on the attack. In most instances a campaign would do everything in their power to make something like this go away quietly.  But not this time.  Donald Trump’s reaction was to go on the  attack and accuse Fields of making up the allegations.  In doing so Trump made Fields the story.  Had he reacted differently and allowed the current established system the opportunity to handle this through the legal system, the worst case scenario would have been that she would be proven correct and it would likely have become much less of a story.  The best case for Donald Trump and his campaign would have been that his assertion that this was a fabrication would have been validated, making anything that would happen to her be a result of her actions, not his.  If you take Michelle Fields on her word, an apology would have made this go away entirely. What happened instead?  Trump went on full attack mode and Fields would wind up having to leave her job and deal with death threats. All this as a result of Trump’s continuing strategy of bucking the establishment.

Losing graciously is not an established tradition of the Republican Party, rather an expected and yes, there’s that word again, established behavior in American politics. After losing in Wisconsin, Trump issued the following statement:

“Donald J. Trump withstood the onslaught of the establishment yet again. Lyin’ Ted Cruz had the Governor of Wisconsin, many conservative talk radio show hosts, and the entire party apparatus behind him. Not only was he propelled by the anti-Trump Super PAC’s spending countless millions of dollars on false advertising against Mr. Trump, but he was coordinating `with his own Super PAC’s (which is illegal) who totally control him. Ted Cruz is worse than a puppet— he is a Trojan horse, being used by the party bosses attempting to steal the nomination from Mr. Trump. We have total confidence that Mr. Trump will go on to win in New York, where he holds a substantial lead in all the polls, and beyond. Mr. Trump is the only candidate who can secure the delegates needed to win the Republican nomination and ultimately defeat Hillary Clinton, or whomever is the Democratic nominee, in order to Make America Great Again.”

In direct contrast, after losing to Bernie Sanders in Wisconsin Hillary Clinton made the following comments:

“Sen. Sanders had a good night last night, and I congratulated him, but if you look at the numbers, I’m still considerably ahead in both the popular vote and most importantly, the delegate count,” Clinton told CNN’s Chris Cuomo. “So I’m feeling very good about where we are.”

 

This is not to say that the more amicable comments of Clinton automatically make her a better person or better candidate than Trump, rather to show the distinct difference between someone who follows the established process rather than work towards changing and restructuring it according to their own will.

That is where the ultimate danger lies. Of the  many people who chuckle at the entertainment value provided by the Trump candidacy, there are those who think he is exactly what the country needs and there are those who believe he may just be an out of control lunatic.  Regardless of what you may think, make no mistake.  His strategy is extremely well-planned and calculated.  To use the old cliche’, Trump is looking to divide and conquer.  Many people already see that, but a large percentage of these people believe he is attempting to do it only to the Republican Party.  In reality what he is really attempting to do, with a somewhat frightening degree of success till now, is tear down the entire established way of doing things so he can rebuild it according to his will.  The one glaring problem with Democracy, is if you convince enough people that your way is the right way, it becomes more and more difficult to fight against it, no matter how damaging it may be.  Populism feeds into the fear and anger of the citizenry and Trump is nothing if not a populist.  The continued popularity of Trump and increasing popularity of Bernie Sanders is all about populism. There are people out there who don’t even need to know that their political savior has realistic or safe approaches towards what ails them, they merely need to hear someone say they are going to do things differently and save them.

If Donald Trump is successful, a lot of what we know to be the norm will change.  As a successful and powerful businessman, Trump is used to doing things his way, not necessarily the expected way.  This is why he does nothing truly genuine to discourage violence at his rallies and why he can go as far as to talk about his private parts at a rally.  A valid argument can be made that we want a leader with so much confidence in their way that they only want to do things according to their plan.  The problem with this is very clear and very simple.  The amount of power that scenario potentially gives that leader is extremely dangerous, regardless of whether that leader is Donald Trump or anyone else.  The difference with Trump is that he has shown a clear desire and ability to break down many elements of the establishment and has garnished enough support in his populist movement to be very relevant.  The one thing no one can be sure of is, should he achieve his desired goal, is whether or not that power will translate into brilliant leadership or devastation and catastrophe.  It is human nature to get drunk on power, and the dangers of Trump getting that power make it a risk anyone supporting him should think about long and hard before taking. The problem with populism is that it is often fueled far more by emotion than reasonable thought.  A factor Trump may very well be counting on.

LIKE THIS POST? SHARE IT ON FACEBOOK OR TWITTER

HOW TO BUY THE BOOK

READ MORE OF WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IN THE DAILY COLUMN

JOIN “THE GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL” ON FACEBOOK

GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL IS NOW ON TWITTER @gcimovement

IN CONJUNCTION WITH GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL