Donald Trump, Lonesome Rhodes?

Trump is Lonesome Rhodes without  the charm.
MFB
'He’s got the courage of his ignorance'.

Rarely and perhaps not in modern times has a presidential campaign more resembled the classic 1957 film, “A Face in the Crowd.” Written by Budd Schulberg and starring Andy Griffith, Patricia Neal and Walter Matthau, the storyline follows an Arkansas hayseed named Larry “Lonesome” Rhodes (Griffith), whom Marcia Jeffries (Neal) discovers in a county jail.
Jeffries has a local radio show on which she interviews interesting characters. She finds Rhodes irresistible and puts him on the air.
Rhodes becomes a sensation, eventually climbing the ladder to his own network TV show and then, as politicians approach him for endorsements, a self-described kingmaker.
I think of Rhodes when I watch Donald Trump. The two have much in common. Rhodes‘ view of women seems to mirror Mr. Trump‘s. In one scene, Rhodes says, “A guitar beats a woman every time.” He marries more than once and has several affairs during and in between those marriages.
As he becomes intoxicated with a beverage clearly not the milk of human kindness, Rhodes brags: “I’m not just an entertainer. I’m an influence, a wielder of opinion, a force a force!”
Later as his political and cultural demise approaches, Rhodes says this about his audience when he thinks the microphone is off (Jeffries has kept it on to expose him as a fraud and make amends for creating a monster): “Those morons out there? Shucks, I could take chicken fertilizer and sell it to them as caviar. I could make them eat dog food and think it was steak. You know what the public’s like? A cage of guinea pigs. Good night, you stupid idiots. Good night, you miserable slobs. They’re a lot of trained seals. I toss them a dead fish and they’ll flap their flippers.”

Rent or buy the film if you haven’t seen it. Think of Mr. Trump as you watch Lonesome Rhodes, his rise and eventual fall, as ego and arrogance lead to the self-immolation of his career and life.
Mr. Trump’s braggadocio about how he plans to bully Russian President Vladimir Putin and free American hostages held by Iran, even before he is sworn in as president, excites his supporters, but lacks any credible specifics. Perhaps Mr. Trump thinks the force of his personality is greater than Russian weaponry or the coming Iranian nuclear bomb. If so, he should not be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office.
Mr. Trump has tapped into a deep anger among many members of the public who hate Washington and its dysfunction. He rightly lambasts politicians who rarely live up to their promises and especially Republicans for too often surrendering to Democrats, a party to which until fairly recently he belonged. But if he wants to tear down the establishment, he must offer something of substance in its place.
Mr. Trump is a chameleon, having held contradictory positions on various issues over the years as it suits him. He fits the dictionary.com definition of demagogue: “A person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.” That’s Lonesome Rhodes. That’s also Donald Trump.
Mr. Trump is a serial violator (and he’s not alone in this) of Ronald Reagan’s “11th Commandment,” which states that Republicans are never to speak ill of a fellow Republican. There’s a good reason for this. If Republicans trash Republicans, by the time a nominee is chosen, the party has given Democrats a slew of disparaging sound bites they can use as political ammo in the general election campaign. Not a smart move.
In the film, Mel Miller (Matthau) delivers one of Schulberg’s best lines about Rhodes: “I’ll say one thing for him, he’s got the courage of his ignorance.”
So does Mr. Trump, who, to give just one example, claims the Bible is his favorite book, but can’t name any of its chapters, or even a single verse. Lonesome Rhodes would have known how to fake it. Mr. Trump might consult the Gideon version in any of his hotel rooms.
• Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist. His latest book is “What Works: Common Sense Solutions for a Stronger America”
　

Progressive Jews and the crusade against Israel

　Progressive Jews leverage their political power and funding outside of Israel in order to change Israeli policies, but they ignore the consequences

Cheers for US vice president Joe Biden’s criticism of settlements at the Reform movement’s recent convention reflect a long-standing position of the organization and a controversy that has divided Jewish communities and undermines support for Israel and Zionism: Are Jewish communities built beyond the 1949 Armistice Lines – the “settlements” – legal, legitimate, and part of the Zionist vision? Unfortunately, Israeli administrations and leaders have not addressed this question.

Recently, two American professors who claim to be Zionists wrote an op-ed inThe Washington Post supporting campaigns to boycott Israel because of “Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory.”

Although criticism of Israel by Jews and Israelis is not unusual, few have crossed the red line of what is considered legitimate criticism.

But it’s a line that begged to be crossed. If Israel’s policy is wrong in their view, why should it be tolerated? Since criticism of “the occupation” and settlements is raised by Israelis, the media and the international community all the time, why should anyone be surprised or upset that non-Israeli liberal Progressive Jews also hold these views and join the crusade against Israel? Progressive Judaism defines itself as a movement for social justice, civil and humanitarian rights, gender equality and pluralism.

It’s a Jewish tradition. Jews are and have been in the forefront of efforts to help those in need, the suffering and persecuted. It’s a biblical commandment: charity, concern for the stranger and the prohibition of taking advantage of someone who is less fortunate, especially an indentured servant – and, above all, the desire for peace.

It is argued that this is the reason why many Progressive Jews support another Palestinian state, “ending the occupation” and eliminating settlements.

But while advocating “pluralistic Judaism” in Israel is consistent with the Reform movement’s theological position, Israel’s settlement policy has nothing to do with religious belief or practice. It is political and affects only Israeli Jews.


Opposition to settlements supports Arab insistence that violence against Israel is legitimate “resistance against Israeli occupation.”

Disguised in rhetoric of “the peace process,” “the two state” delusion, and “two states for two peoples” opposition to settlements and support for Palestinianism ignores Israeli security and the threat of jihad.

Ostensibly humanitarian arguments like “the right of Palestinians to self-determination” confuse the issue by ignoring the meaning of Palestinianism as clearly stated in the PLO and Hamas covenants: Israel’s destruction.

Since there is consensus in Israel that settlements are a strategic asset and there is no longer any possibility of removing them, the Reform movement’s opposition is difficult to understand.

Most Israelis agree that withdrawing from “the occupied territories” would turn these areas into launching sites for more terrorist attacks. Moreover, the large number of Jews living in there – more than a half million – has passed well beyond the point of no return.

If destroying Israeli settlements is not a realistic possibility, harms Jews and Israel and no Israeli government would even consider such a move, why do liberal Progressive Jews continue to promote it? Although some current and former Israeli leaders, academics, writers and pundits support calls to “end the occupation” and champion the cause of Palestinianism, they have little popular support at home. All recent Israeli polls indicate increasing support for settlements and disenchantment with Palestinian promises.

Even Arab Palestinians are deeply divided about “the two-state solution.”

And few Israeli Arabs – even those who despise Israel – would be willing to give up their privileges as Israeli citizens.

A recent Israel Democracy Institute survey revealed that 83.4 percent of Israeli Arabs prefer to live in Israel rather than move to the US or Europe, and rate their situation as “good” or “very good.”

Yet, in another survey by Prof. Sami Smooha of Haifa University, at least 57% of Israeli Arabs said that they support the radical Islamic Movement; other polls indicate widespread support of violence against Jews – demonstrating the power of ideology over well-being.

Similarly, the Nakba (catastrophe of Israel’s establishment) remains a rallying cry for hatred and incitement, even though everyone understands that it is practically irrelevant. Although Arabs focus on “settlements” built after 1967, they don’t ignore those which were established before.
Opposition to settlements is also the heart of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and Arab and Muslim efforts to destroy the State of Israel.

The dispute over settlements, moreover, is exploited by the PA/ PLO.

Ironically, PA President Mahmoud Abbas in his recent UN address quoted Yitzhak Rabin that Israeli settlements are a “cancer.”
But settlement-building continued during Rabin’s tenure, as well as all Israeli administrations because settlements are a national priority which insures defensible borders; they are essential to Israel’s security, economy and its survival.

Progressive Jews, especially those affiliated with the Reform and Reconstructionist movements, organizations like J Street and the New Israel Fund, and pro-Palestinian NGOs led by Progressive Jews like Peace Now, T’ruah, Tayush, Yesh Din, Rabbis for Human Rights and B’Tselem leverage their political power and funding outside of Israel in order to change Israeli policies, but they ignore the consequences.

Opponents of settlements who claim to be “liberal Zionists” don’t want to destroy Israel, only to destroy settlements and “end the occupation.” But their demands contribute to Israel’s demonization, endanger its citizens and place Israel at risk – and, therefore, are fundamentally anti-Zionist and anti-Israel.

In 1937, the Reform movement, in its Columbus Platform affirmed “the obligation of all Jewry to aid in [Palestine’s] upbuilding as a Jewish homeland by endeavoring to make it not only a haven of refuge for the oppressed but also a center of Jewish culture and spiritual life.”



By MOSHE DANN