Trump Endorses his Frenemy, Romney
A living counter-narrative.
Daniella J. Greenbaum 2018-02-21
If Donald Trump’s ascension felt like the final nail in the coffin of the battle over the Republican Party’s soul, Mitt Romney’s Senate run proves that the war is far from over.
During the 2016 election, Romney was unafraid to speak his mind about Trump’s many objectionable words and deeds. He chastised Trump for his comments on Mexican Americans, defended John McCain after Trump’s aspersions, engaged in a twitter war over Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns, and expressed disappointment over the information contained on the “Access Hollywood” tape.
Romney, a former presidential candidate, is to some extent the anti-Trump; he is affable, thoughtful, intellectual, nuanced, reflective, humble, and genteel. Democrats may find fault with his myriad political positions, but few would question his character. The only thing Trump and Romney seem to have in common is their political flexibility. Each campaign has revealed a Romney with slightly altered positions, though that’s hardly a rarity in politics.
If Romney wins the election in November, there’s no question he will use his seat to advance a conservative and morally sound agenda—whether or not that puts him at odds with the president. He could also use his re-entry into public life as a way of positioning himself for another presidential run. This raises the question: why did Trump endorse his frenemy?
There’s very little that suggests Trump feels any sense of genuine loyalty to the Republican party, or that he ever makes decisions based purely on what’s best for the group as a whole. That said, he has demonstrated an occasional willingness to toe the party line. Trump has supported and advanced an agenda that is not wildly inconsistent with that of previous Republican presidents. Now it seems that someone has successfully persuaded the president that not supporting Romney would advance his agenda. If that’s what happened behind closed doors, we can take comfort in the knowledge that the regular machinations of politics—and not merely the whims of an unpredictable political neophyte—are dictating White House policy.
Choose your plan and pay nothing for six Weeks!
For a very limited time, we are extending a six-week free trial on both our subscription plans. Put your intellectual life in order while you can. This offer is also valid for existing subscribers wishing to purchase a gift subscription. Click here for more details.
Trump Endorses his Frenemy, Romney
Must-Reads from Magazine
The New Old European Obsession
Some things never change.
Sohrab Ahmari 2018-02-21
Does Europe still want its Jews, and can the Jews still find belonging in Europe? Ask the likes of Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron, and European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker, and they will answer firmly and decisively in the affirmative. Yet their assurances ring hollow amid a resurgence of Europe’s old and unhealthy obsession with Jews.
The latest signs came this month from Brussels and Warsaw, which nicely illustrated both the geographic span of Europe’s Jewish obsession and the diverse forms it can take depending on the political context.
Start with Brussels and the European Parliament. The EU legislative body is hosting a conference on February 28 on Israeli settlements–a perennial Brussels bugbear, despite the fact that a few Jewish communities in the West Bank are far from the region’s most pressing issue. Among the speakers is the Qatari-born Palestinian activist Omar Barghouti. The invitation to Barghouti came courtesy of Ana Gomes, a Portuguese member from the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, the second-largest bloc in the European Parliament.
As European Jewish leaders noted in a letter to Antonio Tajani, the president of the European Parliament, Barghouti advocates a total economic, cultural, and academic boycott of Israel and denies the Jewish state’s right to exist. Barghouti says he opposes a “binational” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on the ground that such a solution “makes two problematic assumptions: that Jews are a nation, and that such a nation has a right to exist as such in Palestine.” Barghouti, in other words, isn’t just another critic of the settlements but a bigot, who would invite Europeans to isolate the Jewish people and their state.
Economic boycotts of Jews have a long and odious history in Europe, but they are now getting a replay at the European Parliament under the respectable guise of high-minded Israel critique.
Meanwhile, in Warsaw, the nationalist government of the Law and Justice party continues to take an ax to Polish-Jewish and Polish-Israeli friendship. First came a misguided Holocaust bill, which proscribes the use of “Polish death camps” and similar phrases, and criminalizes historical arguments about Polish complicity in the Shoah. That bill was signed into law over the opposition of Poland’s friends in Washington and Jerusalem. Now a Law and Justice official has floated a proposal for a “Polocaust” museum to commemorate non-Jewish Polish victims of the Nazis.
“I think the story of how the fate of Poles during World War Two looked like . . . deserves to be told and shown in this way [in a museum],” Deputy Culture Minister Jaroslaw Sellin told state media on Tuesday. “It is enough to read official German documents from these times or Hitler’s book to know that after the Jews, whom he wanted to completely erase from Europe… the next [target] was generally Slavic people, especially Poles.”
There is nothing wrong with remembering Nazi crimes committed against the Polish people, which were vast and gruesome. But a “Polocaust” museum smacks of a desire to compete with Jewish victimhood and undermine, in the Polish mind, the unique and unparalleled evil of the Jewish Holocaust. The Germans murdered six million Jews; half of them lived in Poland. “Polocaust” talk, moreover, lends ammunition to Poland’s enemies, who seek to portray the country as hopelessly parochial and in thrall to a self-pitying and corrosive nationalism.
A continent whose elites give platforms to the likes of Barghouti, and whose nationalists talk of a “Polocaust,” is no place for Jews.
Choose your plan and pay nothing for six Weeks!
For a very limited time, we are extending a six-week free trial on both our subscription plans. Put your intellectual life in order while you can. This offer is also valid for existing subscribers wishing to purchase a gift subscription. Click here for more details.
When Useful Idiots Were Useful
'Agents of influence' to my right, 'subconscious multiplicators' to my left.
Noah Rothman 2018-02-21
Last week, Robert Mueller’s probe established with legal precision the methods Russian nationals used to sow chaos and dissension in 2016. Moscow’s efforts ranged from laughably silly to quite menacing; all of it amounted to an attack on American sovereignty. The precise effects of the Russian operation are still debatable, but whatever efficacy it enjoyed would have been impossible without the aid and support of Russia’s unwitting accomplices in the United States.
Media outlets have dutifully begun to work backward from the special counsel’s indictment to identify formerly anonymous Trump supporters in the grassroots who voluntarily boosted the signal for Russia’s propagandists. It’s not entirely clear how the discourse is advanced when reporters show up on an elderly woman’s yard to berate her for unknowingly being “in communication electronically with Russians,” but media literacy is an absolute good. If this new crusade is an honest one, though, it won’t begin and end on poor old Florine Goldfarb’s front yard. Those on the left who spent the previous century engaging in any political activity are going to have hell to pay.
The CIA has a valuable real-world example of how Moscow’s agitprop found willing human megaphones in the Western world and to what extent they were, well, useful. If you were inclined toward value judgments, you might even say that the KGB’s campaign to create the impression that AIDS was an invention of Western intelligence agencies, for example, was a marginally greater threat to Western political cohesion than “Killary Rotten Clinton” Facebook memes.
The “active measures” appealed to by Soviet Bloc intelligence agencies in the 1980s to advance the notion that the AIDS virus was developed at Fort Detrick to wipe out homosexuals and African Americans placed a premium on self-hating Westerners. “The KGB was particularly keen on employing another of its standard active-measure practices, the use of unwitting agents who were held in high esteem in their home countries,” the CIA study revealed. “Often, these individuals were journalists, scientists, or other public figures with left-wing views who were not openly pro-Soviet. Bloc intelligence referred to them as ‘agents of influence,’ ‘subconscious multiplicators,’ or simply as ‘useful idiots.’”
The Soviets were fortunate; they never lacked for “subconscious multiplicators” willing to malign the United States under the flimsiest of pretenses. South African President Thabo Mbeki accused the CIA of covering up details about the true nature of AIDS transmission, a claim that is believed to have contributed to approximately 300,000 deaths in his severely affected country. Nobel Peace Prize, Kenyan ecologist Wangari Maathai also claimed AIDS was “designed by some evil-minded scientists” as a biological warfare agent. Barack Obama’s controversial pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, blamed the government for “inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.” The author Gary Glum postulated that the World Health Organization deliberately spread the CIA-created pandemic under the guise of the smallpox eradication campaign. Polling between 1990 and 2005 suggests that a significant portion of the population agreed with the notion that AIDS was a “man-made virus” designed to “kill and wipe out black people.”
To be charitable, echoing Soviet propaganda when you first encounter it among people you trust is forgivable, if not entirely understandable. It’s much harder to countenance abetting the work of the West’s enemies when that work isn’t well concealed. Soviet efforts to cultivate “agents of influence” in the peace movements of the early 1980s were obvious.
Much like the Russian efforts to organize political demonstrations in 2016 both for and against Trump, the Soviets were actively involved in planning demonstrations in New York City in support of the “nuclear freeze” movement—only instead of measuring this gathering in the tens of participants, the event drew 500,000 marchers. According to the testimony of both CIA and FBI officers, the Soviet Union saw an opportunity in this organic movement and sought to co-opt it. The “freeze” movement had significant support in America’s elite political circles; Senate Democrats sponsored resolutions compelling the Reagan administration to adopt it. Walter Mondale ran against the president in 1984 on a “freeze” platform—an agenda item drew no opposition from Mondale’s primary opponents, Senators Alan Cranston or Gary Hart. No serious observer would claim that these Democrats were Soviet assets merely because their views on arms control were determined to be of value for the Kremlin.
European leftist peace movements were even more vulnerable to Soviet influence and infiltration than their American counterparts. “The KGB carries out a wide range of overt and covert activities, including the dissemination of officially sponsored propaganda, attendance at disarmament conferences, friendship and cultural events, and speaking engagements in the guise of accredited Soviet diplomatic and official representatives and journalists,” wrote Walter Laqueur and Robert Edwards Hunter in their 1985 book on the Soviet Union’s active measures in Europe. The Soviets’ goal was to establish “informal contacts with peace groups and their principal members, and the collection of information about the views of peace organizations and their membership.”
Among those movements that the Soviet Bloc intelligence infiltrated was Labour Action for Peace (LAP)—a leftist group eventually led by the current leader of the Labour Party in Britain, Jeremy Corbyn. Though it seems Corbyn himself was not recruited to serve as an asset for the East, as other British MPs like John Stonehouse and William Owen were, it is clear that both Corbyn (who was assigned a code name by Czechoslovak intelligence) and the organization he went on to lead were of great value to the Communist world. After all, according to East German Stasi archives, “The position of leading representatives of the LAP coincides with that of the socialist countries: The blame for the escalation of the nuclear arms race is borne by the U.S. and its NATO allies.”
None of this excuses the behavior of Americans on either side of the divide in 2016 who were wooed by shoddy Russian propaganda. Indeed, it’s condemnation in the strongest of terms; there’s no redemption for Republicans who adopted the most detestable traits of their political foes. But this national outpouring of condemnation targeting those who found something to love in Russian propaganda should strive to achieve comprehensiveness. If some Trump supporters are damnably naïve for letting Moscow lead them around by the nose for a few months, what does that say about the left’s enduring infatuation with the Soviets?
Choose your plan and pay nothing for six Weeks!
For a very limited time, we are extending a six-week free trial on both our subscription plans. Put your intellectual life in order while you can. This offer is also valid for existing subscribers wishing to purchase a gift subscription. Click here for more details.
Do Arabs Back Israel in a Clash with Iran?
Reality beckons.
Evelyn Gordon 2018-02-21
After issuing a rare rebuke of Iran’s repeated calls for Israel’s destruction on Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov added that Moscow also opposes “attempts to view any regional problem through the prism of fighting Iran.” Unfortunately for him, that’s precisely the way most of the Middle East does view many regional problems, as revealed by a stunning informal poll which an Al Jazeera talk show host conducted among his tens of thousands of Arabic-language Twitter followers on February 10. Asked which side they supported in a recent Israeli-Iranian clash in Syria, fully 56 percent–12,800 people–said they backed Israel.
Needless to say, this is not because the respondents love Israel. But it’s a stunning measure of just how much they hate Iran and its Syrian protégé, the Assad regime. As one Syrian wrote, “no Syrian in his right mind” would support Israel in most situations, “but you will find millions of Syrians queuing up with the blue devils”–his charming term for Israel–“against the fascist sectarian regime that has surpassed all the monsters on earth in killing Syrians.”
What makes the results even more noteworthy is that the poll was conducted by the host of a show on Al Jazeera, a Qatari-owned station that still views Israel as public enemy number one. Unlike Saudi Arabia, whose government openly loathes Iran and whose media outlets routinely echo this view, Qatar maintains close relations with Iran. Indeed, these close relations are one of the main reasons why Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states severed ties with Qatar last year. In other words, this wasn’t a case of respondents telling a pollster what they thought he wanted to hear; Al Jazeera’s coverage would have encouraged them to label Israel a greater evil than Iran. Yet a decisive majority nevertheless backed Jerusalem against Tehran.
That most Arab governments now consider Iran a greater enemy than Israel isn’t news; their behind-the-scenes cooperation with Israel against Tehran has become an open secret. Indeed, if you read Reuters’ interview from the Munich Security Conference on Sunday with the names blacked out, you could easily think the interviewee was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rather than Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir. The four steps Al-Jubeir deemed crucial–reining in Iran’s ballistic missile program, reining in its support for terror, canceling the sunset provision in its 2015 nuclear deal, and altering the deal to allow inspections of undeclared and military sites–are the same steps Netanyahu advocates at every opportunity.
But since Arab governments are far from democratic, anyone unwilling to abandon his faith that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the root of all Mideast evils had an out. Arab regimes might view Iran as the number-one problem, they argued, but for ordinary Arabs, the Palestinian issue still has pride of place.
What Al Jazeera’s informal poll shows is that this argument is simply false. It’s not just in Arab capitals that Iran is now more widely loathed and feared than Israel, but also on the Arab street, to the point that Arabs are even willing to openly back Israel in a clash with Iran. If Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians were still their top concern, they would instead be rooting for Iran against Israel–just as most of the Arab world did back in 2006 when Israel fought a month-long war with Iran’s wholly-owned Lebanese subsidiary, Hezbollah.
This sea change in Arab attitudes has serious foreign policy implications for anyone who calls himself a realist. As John Podhoretz correctly argued in COMMENTARY’s March issue, the realist view that Israel was the source of most Mideast problems could always more properly have been termed “fantasist”; most of the Arab world’s ills have nothing to do with Israel. But realists did have one unassailable fact on their side: When you stack Israel up against the Arab world, the latter has both the numbers and the oil. Consequently, it was at least tenable to argue–as long as you ignore all the other considerations Podhoretz cites–that America’s interests were better served by siding with the Arabs against Israel.
Today, the Arab world still has the numbers and the oil, but it’s siding with Israel against Iran. So for any realist who holds that America should align itself with Arab concerns because numbers and oil are crucial considerations, the top priority now shouldn’t be another fruitless Israeli-Palestinian peace process, but reining in Iran’s malignant behavior. To its credit, that is something the Trump Administration is trying to do by threatening to scrap the nuclear deal unless the four Israeli-Saudi-American concerns cited above are addressed.
As for all the self-proclaimed realists who remain fixated on Israel despite the change in Arab attitudes that has destroyed their main argument, perhaps it’s time to drop the “realist” label. The more accurate term for people who see Jews as the root of all evil under any and all circumstances is “anti-Semite.”
Choose your plan and pay nothing for six Weeks!
For a very limited time, we are extending a six-week free trial on both our subscription plans. Put your intellectual life in order while you can. This offer is also valid for existing subscribers wishing to purchase a gift subscription. Click here for more details.
The Russian Meddling Was in Our Hearts
Podcast: How serious was Russia's intervention in 2016?
Noah Rothman 2018-02-21Robert Mueller’s special counsel’s office issues a series of indictments that establish the facts of Russia’s efforts to influence the political process in 2016, which are incontrovertible and disturbing but also objectively underwhelming. The COMMENTARY Podcast hosts explore the renewed debate over Russian meddling and the ongoing campaign to secure new gun laws in the wake of the mass shooting in Parkland, Florida.
Don’t forget to subscribe to our podcast on iTunes.
Choose your plan and pay nothing for six Weeks!
For a very limited time, we are extending a six-week free trial on both our subscription plans. Put your intellectual life in order while you can. This offer is also valid for existing subscribers wishing to purchase a gift subscription. Click here for more details.
