Kad Barma holds the position that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between our two political parties, but here is a discussion of a place where there is a difference. This is an analysis of something Law Professor Glenn Reynolds (the Instapundit) sent out, apparently via EMail. The analysis is done by one of the Chicago Boyz, David Foster.
The blog title sums it up, "Congressional and Voter Attitudes Toward Israel".
I think the third comment goes to the heart of why we might care. Today we have a horrible balance in the Middle East, and it is unstable. However, if the balance finally tips one way or the other things will get truly ugly. The best case scenario is that millions of people will be displaced.♠ The worse case scenario is that millions of people will die. They are not playing bean bag out there.
Regards — Cliff
♠ And which nation is the nation of choice for taking in those fleeing Genocide? This is a fill-in-the-blank test question.
2 comments:
To be clear, the point regards the results, not the individuals. For example, one might correlate the NRA to the GOP, and the ACLU to the Democrats, but still understand that the "Patriot" Act advances the 2nd amendment interests of neither constituency (or 1st amendment for that matter) though it's implemented and supported by both major political parties against the interest of ALL their constituents.
Unprecedented deficits have also been the stock in trade of both parties, though "cut taxes" and "maintain services" are another way to differentiate the exhortations of the craven politicos on each side while they run for office. (Once they get into office, hold onto to your pennies, because you're going to need them).
As for "attitudes toward Israel", I would opine that Israel makes the bed in which they lie (yes, I understand the usage differences between "lie" and "lay", and see reference to white phosphorous munitions for one of the extant issues other than "settlements") and whether and how we support or oppose them does very little to influence the decisions they make. The "umbrella" of US protection under which they may or may not operate is rapidly losing its marginal utility.
Here's some current news coverage relevant to "Congressional and Voter Attitudes Toward Israel: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101021/ap_on_bi_ge/ml_israel_settlements_unfrozen
I find it difficult to accept a statement that Israel becoming a partisan issue in American politics is "thanks to changes in the Democratic party". From where I sit reading the news, it's thanks entirely to Israeli behavior, and there's nothing unwelcome in that healthy development.
My only discouragement is that so few on the R side of the aisle are willing to take Israel to task for its behavior.
Post a Comment