Both parties seem to have elements that the other party considers extreme.  For the Democrats it is union thugs, liberal anti-Semites, environmental zealots, and blatant socialists. For the Republicans it is creationists (considered anti-science),  fundamentalist Christians, pro-lifers, and the ethnocentric. (Many Democrats just say ‘racists’. Republicans do not accept that for good reason but many still fall victim to ethno centric thinking.)  It is interesting to observe that fundamental Christians have become more allied with Israel and Jewish interests over the last twenty years and that anti-Semitic rhetoric has become much more pronounced from the left.

The challenge for both parties is to what extent the extreme elements will define the party in the general election. This is only relevant to the extent that the independents consider these elements to be extreme.  Each party will play the other as being controlled by their extremist elements.  The Democrats play the extremist card relentlessly.  The Republicans would be very wise to do the same; the last few years has certainly given them plenty of ammunition.   The party that is best able to marginalize their extremist elements will have a tremendous advantage.

During primaries it seems that candidates, desperate for traction, appeal to ‘extremist’ elements.  But this moderates in the general elections as the winner must attract more centrist voters. Inevitably this leaves the ‘extremists’ disappointed  no matter who wins.

Republicans have often fallen because their more extreme elements refused to fall behind their candidate.  George H. Bush lamented how the various GOP litmus tests impeded their success.  The Democrats have often succeeded more from their solidarity than their representation of a voting majority.

This time may be different. As divided as the GOP appears to be during this primary, this is likely to dissipate when the nominee is selected.  Obama is considered so extreme that the GOP may display the kind of solidarity more often associated with their rival.

I confess that I am less than enthused by the GOP choices offered.  The primary has more of the feel of a reality TV show than a serious political discourse.  The process seems to serve media interests and ratings more than political interests.  Ideas take a back seat to the lurid and the irrelevant.  Yet, somehow, in this media madness, there is a severe and brutal vetting process that may serve the winning candidate well in the general election.

A winning strategy for the GOP is to constantly remind the voters how extreme this sitting president has been and focus on restoring a proper balance between the public and private sector. Talk of radical changes such as a balanced budget amendment, a gold standard, abolishing the Fed, isolationist foreign policy is more likely to excite elements of support at the expense of ultimate victory. It is better to promote strong action than radical change.

Caroline Glick

In her blog Caroline Glick writes An Ally No More, 12/6/11:

Excerpts:

The same Secretary of State that has heralded negotiations with the violent, fanatical misogynists of the Taliban; who has extolled Saudi Arabia where women are given ten lashes for driving, and whose State Department trained female-hating Muslim Brotherhood operatives in the lead-up to the current elections in Egypt accused Israel of repressing women’s rights. The only state in the region where women are given full rights and legal protections became the focus of Clinton’s righteous feminist wrath.

Whereas the Taliban, who enslave women and girls in the most unspeakable fashion are worthy interlocutors, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which supports universal female genital mutilation is moderate, Israel is an enemy of democracy for seeking to preserve the government’s ability to adopt policies that advance the country’s interests.

The unique standard to which Clinton holds the Jewish state is the standard of human perfection.

And as far as she is concerned, if Israel is not perfect, then it is unworthy of support. And since Israel, as a nation of mere mortals can never be perfect, it is necessarily always guilty.

So too, there is little qualitative difference between blaming Israel for its isolation in the face of the Islamist takeover of the Arab world, and blaming the Jews for the rise of anti-Semites to power in places like Russia, Germany and Norway.

HKO Comment:
As the only UN member that must deal with an existential threat, such treatment by U.S. officials is intolerable. Fortunately our relationship with Israel is much more culturally based than it is dependent on politicians. After a century of devastating anti-Semitic violence it is inexcusable for public officials to rationalize acceptable forms of anti-Semitism.

Ruth Wisse

Ruth Wisse writes The Suicidal Passion – Who is damaged more by anti-Semitism- Jews, or those who organize politics against them,  in The Weekly Standard 11/21/11

Excerpt:

Anti-Semitism, or the organization of politics against the Jews, is at once the most protean and the most misunderstood force in modern politics. Because it works through misdirection, most people associate it with Jews who are its target, rather than with anti-Semites who are its perpetrators. But whether aimed at the Jews in their dispersion or in their homeland, anti-Semitism and its offshoot anti-Zionism are about the Jews only in the way that fox hunting is about foxes. Those who organize their hunt around the fox consider it the best animal to hunt. Important as it may be to identify those features in the swift little animal that make it the chosen target of those giving chase, any analysis of fox hunting must concentrate on the hunters—their motivations, strategies, implements, goals, and perceived gains. Fox hunting stops when there is a change in hunters, not in foxes. So, too, with anti-Semitism. Only changes in the implicated countries can arrest the political process their leadership promotes.

Arab leaders do not yet acknowledge that they sealed the doom of their societies in 1948 when they organized their politics against the Jewish state rather than toward the improvement of their countries. Like a great many autocrats, dictators, tyrants, and antiliberal rulers before them, the founders of the Arab League in 1945 found it convenient to mobilize against the Jews and against the competitive way of life they represent. Whereas Europeans were jolted by revelations of what came to be known as the Holocaust into awareness of the ruin anti-Semitism had wrought, Arab leaders saw in the Jews the same political opportunities that had enticed Germany. Anti-Semitism was the European ideology most eagerly imported and adapted to the Middle East.

HKO Comment:

This is a very rich article worth a couple of readings. In these passages, Wisse exmines the effect of antii-Semitism on the perpetrators rather than the intended victims.  Perhaps the destruction of the perpetrators is less the result of divine justice than their abject failure to accept responsibility to build their own society.

The history of anti-Semitism is caught in a twisted Catch 22.  The perpetrators hold to power in the face of their own miserable failures by blaming the Jews, but if they extinguish the Jews they also remove their chief uniting cause.   This is why they often chose to marginalize the Jews rather than eliminate them.

The exception was of course Nazi Germany that truly sought to annihilate the Jewish people and devoted so much in the way of energy and resources toward this goal that they drowned in their own hatred.

The Middle East is following in their footsteps with the distinct difference that the Arab world is far less developed, less educated and less industrial than Germany was during the Third Reich.  The greater difference is that the Jews, having their own nation, are able to defend themselves.

The Arab Spring may throw off the yoke of dictators, but unless they also dispose of the foolish beliefs that these dictators used to hold on to power for decades their societies will continue to decline.

At Bloomberg.com Jeffrey Golberg writes Praise Arab Spring, Except for Anti-Semitism 11/28/11.

Excerpts:

A BBC journalist named Thomas Dinham recently wrote of his own encounter with anti-Semitism in Cairo. Dinham, who is neither Israeli nor Jewish, told of one potentially dangerous confrontation: “Someone pushed me from behind with such force that I nearly fell over. Turning around, I found myself surrounded by five men, one of whom tried to punch me in the face. I stopped the attack by pointing out how shameful it was for a Muslim to assault a guest in his country, especially during Ramadan.” He went on, “I was appalled by the apology offered by one of my assailants. ‘Sorry,’ he said contritely, offering his hand, ‘we thought you were a Jew.’”

The Arab Spring should liberate people not only from oppressive rulers, but also from self-destructive and delusional patterns of belief. Anti-Semitism, the “socialism of fools,” not only threatens the Israel-Egypt peace treaty and dehumanizes Jews. It also undermines rationality. It prevents its adherents from seeing the world as it is — and it will only be an impediment to actual change in the Arab world.

Walter Russell added his comments on Goldberg’s piece at his blog at The American Interest in a post called The Anti-Semitic Spring:

As I’ve observed before in this space, countries where vicious anti-Semitism is rife are almost always backward and poor.  This isn’t, as anti-Semites believe, because the Elders of Zion are plotting to keep Uz-beki-beki-beki-stan poor.  It is because the inability to see the world clearly and discern cause and effect relations in complex social settings is linked to many other failures in economic and political life.  Anti-Semitism isn’t just the socialism of fools; it is the sociology of the befuddled.  The anti-Semite fails to grasp how the world works, and that failure condemns him to endless frustration.  Naturally, this is the fault of the Jews.

In a similar vein Ruth Wisse writes at The Weekly Standard The Suicidal Passion

..early benefits of organizing politics against the Jews are inevitably outweighed by the ruin that overtakes its practitioners. Why inevitably? Because anti-Semitism attributes real problems to a phony cause. Putting off problems tends to compound them, and aggression fomented against a convenient target cannot be permanently controlled or contained. Strategies of blame may temporarily help justify repression, quell rebellion, camouflage corruption, channel dissatisfaction, and redirect aggression, but societies that resort to them collapse under the weight of their negativity. Palestinians—once considered the ablest Arabs, and perhaps sacrificed by their fellow Arabs for that reason—are now in strong competition with Germans of the last century in the sweepstakes of self-destruction.

HKO Comment:
It is not the dictators themselves that have held back these countries. It is a culture of blame and hatred that has been inculcated by the imams from their pulpit. Our foreign policy has focused on the political leaders when the real power was emanating from the mosques.

tips to Bob Cain

Wall Street was targeted presumably because the marchers think that they are getting away with crimes against the people and they profit at the expense of others’ misery.

Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 year in prison. Jeffrey Shilling from Enron is serving time as is Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski.  Richard Scrushy from Healthsouth is serving a seven year stretch.  Martha Stewart and other less notable ficures have served time for abuse of our financial system.

But beyond justice for criminal activity lies even greater loss.  Countrywide, Merrill Lynch, Bear Sterns, Wachovia, and numerous other banks and firms no longer exist as independent entities as a result of poor decisions and reckless risk exposure.  Stockholders lost billions and the wealth of CEOs were also cut significantly. Dick Fuld at Lehman Brothers lost hundreds of millions of dollars as his company went bankrupt. While there is much to criticize on Wall Street, let’s not forget that they are not immune to the reach of justice within our legal system or the even harsher  discipline of the market.

Do they benefit from the misery of others?  Isn’t this true of doctors and lawyers?  Most of the mindless at OWS seem to have no clue what Wall Street does or how our financial system and economy fucntions.  While they blame Wall Street almost exclusively they should be skeptical of the information they are fed. At Investor’s Business Daily Paul Sperry writes Wall Street Bashers Owed True Look At Crisis Roots.

Excerpt:

From the opening gavel, Angelides, a Pelosi crony appointed by the former speaker, declared ex-Countrywide Financial CEO Angelo Mozilo “off limits” in the investigation. He failed to call to testify the subprime lender who was the largest source for private mortgage-backed security tranches used to create CDOs for nine of the 10 largest CDO underwriters on Wall Street. Why?

Mozilo was not only a big Democrat donor, but employed Pelosi’s son as a Countrywide broker and sales manager.

And if Mozilo were allowed to testify, the public might learn the inconvenient truth that HUD pressured him to originate nearly $800 billion in toxic loans (later sold to Fannie and Freddie) to meet “fair lending” pledges he signed under HUD’s little-known Best Practices Initiative “to help wipe out discriminatory practices in mortgage lending.” This, of course, would have undercut the commission’s “predatory lending” story line.

Charles Krauthammer noted the danger of populist demagoguery in The Scapegoat Strategy in the National Review online 10/14/11:

Excerpt:

Problem is, this kind of populist demagoguery is more than intellectually dishonest. It’s dangerous. Obama is opening a Pandora’s box. Popular resentment, easily stoked, is less easily controlled, especially when the basest of instincts are granted legitimacy by the nation’s leader.

I have noted in several recent posts the anti-Semitic element in the OWS rallies.  Liberal Phyllis Chesler has warned for years of the anti-Semitic element that has taken root on the left side of the spectrum.  At her site she posted An Open Letter to the ‘Good Liberal’ Who Ignores Occupy Wall Street’s Jew Hatred 10/19/11.  Her point is that ignoring anti-Semitism does not contain it.
The Weisenthal Center posted Excerpts from an essay from Rabbi Abraham Cooper and historian Dr. Harold Brackman on anti- Semitism on the fringes of the Occupy Wall Streeters…

Excerpt

…If the Occupy Wall Streeters really want their movement to achieve mainstream credibility, they should begin by policing their own ranks… social and political civility must also prevail. The Occupy Movement’s leaders in LA as well as New York need to disown the purveyors of hate within their ranks. They must pull the plug on the bigots amongst them who view the slogan of fighting the detested “1 percent of fat cats” as their opportunity to mainstream the hatred of Jews.

Pajamas Media offered a collection of some of the anti-Semitic rants: More Anti-Semitism at Occupy Los Angeles.

But the socially destructive attitude exhibited is not limited to anti-Semitism.  Dennis Prager well notes  in The Left’s Dangerous Class Hatred in The National Review 10/18/11.  He notes that class hatred is not materially different from racism:

Excerpt:

Being on the left means that you divide the world between rich and poor much more than you divide it between good and evil. For the leftist, the existence of rich and poor — inequality — is what constitutes evil. More than tyranny, inequality disturbs the Left, including the non-Communist Left. That is why so many on the Left fell in love with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, and, at other times, with every left-wing dictator. Non-leftists see these men as thugs; much of the Left sees them as fighters for equality.

Perhaps this explains why anti-Semitism so easily takes root in leftist regimes and at the OWS rallies.  The history of anti-Semitism is so attached to the Jewish prominence in the financial and banking sectors that it is was not at all unpredictable that it would surface as a result of the class warfare rhetoric.

When the Oklahoma bombing occurred during the Clinton presidency, he noted his opinion that the right wing radio talk show rhetoric (spelled Limbaugh) contributed to the tragedy.  When Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords  was shot in Arizona, noted voices on the left jumped on right wing rhetoric before we knew anything about the psycho shooter.  Obama, to his credit, diffused this when he spoke at the funeral of the many victims.

His harping on class warfare topics, however,  feeds the extremists marching on Wall Street.  As Krauthammer notes, this passion is more easy to ignite than to control and extinguish.  In the absence of a clear and reasonable message the movement is attracting anti-Semitics, Nazis, Communists and other extremist elements.  These elements should be loudly disavowed, not ignored.

The mindless prefer demons to understanding and solutions.  This is the essence of conspiracy theorists.  Our financial system provides a useful function, in spite of its noted flaws and abuses,  but few people outside of the system understand it well, and it thus provides a useful adversary. The OWS crowd is divided between the incredibly ignorant and those who seek  to exploit them.

The mindless also avoid clarity. What is excess wealth? Earning fifty million dollars on Wall Street is evil, but apparently this is less true if you are Oprah Winfrey, Michael Moore, or a professional baseball player.  Excess wealth is wealth earned in a less approved profession.  Walter Williams noted further that the target is more about acquiring power in Pitting Us Against Each Other:

Excerpt:

… promoting jealousy, fear and hate is an effective strategy for politicians and their liberal followers to control and micromanage businesses. It’s not about the amount of money people earn. If it were, politicians and leftists would be promoting jealousy, fear and hate toward multimillionaire Hollywood and celebrities and sports stars, such as LeBron James ($48 million), Tiger Woods ($75 million) and Peyton Manning ($38 million). But there is no way that politicians could take over the roles of Oprah Winfrey, Lady Gaga and LeBron James. That means celebrities can make any amount of money they want and it matters not one iota politically.

During this OWS flea fest it is also worth noting that the city with the highest per capita wealth is DC.  As noted by economics blogger Mark Perry in his Carpe Diem:

Excerpt:

The U.S. capital has swapped top spots with Silicon Valley, according to recent Census Bureau figures, with the typical household in the Washington metro area earning $84,523 last year. The national median income for 2010 was $50,046.

The figures demonstrate how the nation’s political and financial classes are prospering as the economy struggles with unemployment above 9 percent and thousands of Americans protest in the streets against income disparity, said Kevin Zeese, director of Prosperity Agenda, a Baltimore-based advocacy group trying to narrow the divide between rich and poor.

“There’s a gap that’s isolating Washington from the reality of the rest of the country,” Zeese said. “They just get more and more out of touch.”