The Last Chance Democracy Cafe

Barack Obama, as surely you know by now, isn’t a liberal or a conservative: he’s a pragmatist. We know this because that’s what everyone is saying and surely everyone wouldn’t lie.

So just exactly what is this mighty pragmatism of which we speak? According to Mr. Webster (or is it Mr. Merriam, I always get those two confused) it means this:

“Pragmatism: a practical approach to problems and affairs.”

A bit more specificity might have been nice, but I suppose this gives us the general idea: pragmatism means doing what works as opposed to getting too wrapped up in things like ideology and principle.

And if that’s so, it would seem that pragmatism is what pragmatism does. Which means to me, if pragmatism represents building a functioning system for universal health insurance, I’m all for it. On the other hand, if it means inviting an infamous homophobe to give the benediction at the presidential inauguration, then I’m not so hot on it.

Yet, on the whole, if Obama being a pragmatist means he will work to actually get something done to address America’s problems, count me as an enthusiastic supporter. Addressing our problems (as opposed to gratuitously creating new ones as in Iraq) is certainly something that’s been conspicuously absent — and much missed — over the past eight years.

The thing is, I hope Obama understands that real pragmatism (as opposed to its use as an excuse for politically expedient sellouts) can be hard and thankless work — much harder than being an ideologue. We’ve had a unique opportunity to watch ideologues in action over the last eight years, of course — and it strikes as a fairly easy way of life. Just do what your ideology tells you to do whether it works or not (which in the case of Bush, Cheney and the Republicans has been pretty much never).

As to Obama, to begin with the good news: I have no doubt at all that he is up to doing the hard work required for true pragmatism. During his two plus years of backbreaking campaigning he was anything but a slacker (the current dictionary definition for the term political slacker, by the way, includes a photograph of Fred Thompson).

No, an aversion to hard work isn’t the part of being a true pragmatist I worry about in the case of Obama — it’s the thankless part: because being a truly pragmatic president will require royally pissing off some very powerful people. Is Obama really prepared to do this? I’m honestly unsure, but I think I know what the ultimate test will be — Israel.

Viewed by any rational standard, America’s policy towards Israel represents the ultimate in counter-pragmatism. In fact, it’s down right masochistic.

Every year, the United States shovels billions upon billions of dollars in military assistance into this one tiny Middle Eastern nation. Indeed, one study suggests that the total cost to the United States for its support of Israel had reached $3 trillion in 2002 (you could almost buy a bailout for that kind of money).

At the same time, the United States, in contrast to the rest of the world, continues to offer unqualified support for whatever actions Israel takes in its conflict with the Palestinians, no matter how ham-fisted or unnecessarily brutal they may be. We can see this phenomenon in operation right now, as both the Bush Administration and the Democratic leadership in Congress veritably bubble with enthusiasm in offering their endorsements of the current Israeli attacks in the Gaza Strip.

Absent from these statements, of course, is even the slightest sense of perspective — or any willingness to acknowledge the suffering that has been caused by Israel’s clearly illegal policies of group punishment against the Palestinian people.

The damage caused to America’s standing in the world by this slavishly “pro-Israeli” attitude can hardly be debated. It pollutes everything else we try to accomplish in the Middle East and the greater Islamic world. It destroys our ability to be act as an “honest broker” in Middle Eastern peace talks. It makes us look like hypocrites when we deplore the lawlessness of other Middle Eastern nations, while ignoring Israel’s forty year defiance of UN resolutions.

But the saddest thing of all about America’s bankrupt approach to the Middle East is that it damages Israel. As many within the Jewish State themselves are coming to see, Israel badly needs a little “tough love” from the United States — a strong push to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve a comprehensive settlement.

The long term threat to Israel, after all, doesn’t come from the possibility of a conventional military attack. The little nosebleed it got in Lebanon notwithstanding, Israel could easily defend itself against a combined attack by every nation in the Arab world with one arm tied behind its back. That’s what it means to be a regional superpower. The danger to Israel comes, instead, from more insidious sources, including the ever present possibility of nonconventional terrorist attacks — perhaps eventually nuclear — and the damage wrought to the structure of its society by years as an occupying force.

Israel will never be secure until there is peace. And it is increasingly apparent that peace will never come until the world, under US leadership, forces it upon the region. 

But that is something we won’t do. We’ve never even tried. And there’s a good reason for this — because to try to do force Israel’s hand — even just a little — would set loose a political firestorm of biblical proportions in this nation.

So, is Barack Obama enough of a pragmatist to finally do something to address this insanity? Sadly, even speaking as an Obama enthusiast, I have considerable doubt. Certainly, the early signs aren’t encouraging. And we won’t know for certain until long after he takes office

But in the meanwhile, I have a warning to offer him. While taking on the Israeli lobby, even to a small degree, may appear too politically risky, the price of inaction will be profound. Obama has a unique opportunity to do something very few presidents have done — to achieve greatness. History has given him that chance, but only he can grab hold of it and make it real.

And here’s the bottom line: Barack Obama will not be a great president unless he fundamentally changes America’s policy in the Middle East. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn’t just one of many foreign policy problems: in many ways, it represents the whole ballgame. Virtually every other international challenge the United States faces, from terrorism to the price of oil, is tied in a very consequential way to this conflict.

Sure, Obama can probably get away with letting the issue slide by with a half-assed retreading of old policy initiatives — hold a few more summits here, engage in a little shuttle diplomacy there: a lot of talk but little progress. And if he does, he may still have a reasonably successful presidency in many ways. But, just like all of his recent predecessors, he’ll be leaving behind a time bomb waiting to explode (again and again) in both America and Israel’s face.

And one other thing — he’ll have pissed away his chance for greatness.

This entry was posted by Steve on Monday, December 29th, 2008 at 1:19 pm and is filed under Comment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.