I would like to respond to the more substantive and therefore interesting criticisms of my recent blog, “Obama’s Dilemma.” I meant the term to apply not merely to Obama’s Israeli policies, but more broadly to his overall political dilemma. Several commentators so understood this implicit broader argument, as their criticisms suggested. So I will begin with a response to this broader “dilemma,” and then briefly address the Israeli issue specifically.
I was charged with having fallen victim to “Obamaphilia,” which presumably means that I love him so dearly that I am blind to the alleged fact that he is nothing more than a “cowering politician,” who could have done what we liberals long to see done, if only he had some guts. What I do think is that Obama is highly intelligent, fundamentally liberal, and a man of great personal character-- but that he must seek to govern in a political environment which places severe constraints on his ability to do what should be done. If Obama tried to ignore this environment and its constraints, he would lose decisively. Indeed, in terms of Obama’s overall agenda, the outcome would be worse than if he had continued his cautious, measured, half-a-loaf-is-better-than-none approach.
Another implication of the criticisms of Obama is that he is concerned only about the electoral prospects of the Democrats in the forthcoming congressional elections and, even more so, his chances of being reelected in 2012—as if these concerns, which I’m sure he has, were very narrow if not simply egoistic ones. I must say that I find this notion to be quite odd. The U.S. is the most conservative, rightwing country in the West, and in a number of respects it is rapidly drifting even further to the right. The alternative to Obama and the Democrats is political domination by the Republican party—and this would have the most severe consequences to all of us.
Perhaps I got carried away a bit—but only just a bit—when I characterized the Republican party as “Neanderthal,” or later, “reptilian.” What I actually do believe-- and now I choose my words with care--is that the Republican party today is increasingly dominated by dangerous and ignorant yahoos, and that if they take control of Congress after this fall’s elections, and then the presidency in the 2012 elections, it will be a national or even global disaster. Thus, my concern is not really with Obama, personally, or the Democratic party as such, but rather with the nature of our society, the prospects for rational domestic and foreign policies, and the future of liberalism in this country.
As for Israel, in particular. Several critics suggested a list of things that Obama could do to pressure Israel. That line of argumentation simply ignores my argument: It’s not that I can’t think of things that Obama could do to pressure Israel, but rather that there is no chance that he could take any meaningful actions without congressional support, which he won’t get. Yes, he could take a few symbolic actions and issue a few verbal slaps on the wrist to Israel, but that will (a) fail to change Israel’s policies, and (b) result in a backlash in Congress, even among Democrats.
In short ,the strongest action Obama could take--making all US aid conditional—has no chance of being implemented, and the weakest actions have no chance of being effective. Moreover, I argued, even in the purely hypothetical case in which the U.S simply cuts Israel loose, that would still be unlikely to bring about a change in Israeli policies. Indeed, it would be more likely to lead to an hysterical and defiant Israeli reaction which will drive that country even further to the right. Of course, it is possible that this argument is wrong. However, it must be addressed, not simply ignored.
In the real world—outside the blogosphere, that is—consequences matter. Visceral anger at Obama’s retreat on Israel is understandable—indeed, that is often my own initial reaction. But then I remember the wisdom of Peter Viereck, the great American poet,historian, and intellectual: “Reality is that which, when you don’t believe in it, doesn’t go away."
Phil, the byline for this should be Jerome Slater. I was a bit confused until I clicked on the hyperlink to Jerome’s blog.
Yes Oscar thanks for that. It is my fault, I posted it without fixing the byline. I do that in my haste sometimes. Apologies to Jerry Slater too! Phil
I don’t think Obama has great personal character, or at any rate there’s no evidence of it. Glenn Greenwald has been documenting his betrayals on the civil liberties and human rights front for many months now. It’s not just that he doesn’t prosecute Bush Administration officials–that would in fact have ignited a political war. Part of me says “bring it on”, but I can understand rational arguments against this. But anyway, that’s a misconception. Obama has done more than just refuse to investigate Bush war crimes–he has actively pursued policies which extended Bush’s notions of an imperial presidency. VR seems to think he’s the only person who sees this, but there really is a basic bipartisan continuity when it comes to the imperial presidency and US imperialism in general and Obama’s first term is just Bush’s third.
As for Israel, I can see Obama sidelining the conflict and going along with AIPAC for the reasons Slater says, but given who he has as advisors and who he picked as his Secretary of State there’s no real reason to think he’s a closet idealist on this. His speeches to AIPAC in 2007 and 2008 seemed like the standard boilerplate garbage. And when Jeremiah Wright stepped out of line, Obama went out of his way to dismiss all his ideas (not just the handful of genuinely stupid things Wright said) on Israel and US foreign policy. Obama could use the bully pulpit to some degree if he chose–he could, for instance, condemn violence from both Palestinians and Israelis, but he doesn’t. He condemns Palestinian terror and Israeli settlements. It wouldn’t require an act of Congress for Obama to condemn violence that kills civilians from both sides (he doesn’t have to use the term “war crime”) or to condemn more specifically the day-to-day oppression that Palestinians experience, but instead he uses bloodless terminology when describing Israeli sins and the far more emotional word “terrorism” when discussing Palestinian crimes. If he were a little more even-handed just in his rhetoric it would force the press to do a more thorough job explaining why he might say such things. And that could change the politics a bit.
Otherwise, what’s the point? If Obama is helpless to use the right words, why should we ever expect anything from our politicians? (Cue VR here.)
Off topic, but Meron Benvenisti has an interesting article at the link below. But I don’t mean that people should talk about that here. I just want to put the link in while I remember it and suggest that Phil put up a post about it.
link to haaretz.com
As one who thought Professor Slater was wrong the first time around I have to say that I don’t think this rescues his position.
In the first (and yet more minor) place I think he’s just flat and obviously wrong when he says that Obama can really do nothing vis a vis Israel, or do nothing without Congress, or do nothing even with Congress that would have an effect on Israel. (With the Professor essentially saying all three.)
Just clearly not so. For example of course the Prez. has his own bully pulpit and has no need of Congress to edit his talk. And all on his own the Prez. and the Prez. alone instructs our voting at the U.N. And he or she alone determines the content or repeal of Executive Agreements which don’t require Congressional approval. I have little doubt, for instance, as regards same that many concern Israel. Plus, for instance, what Obama was apologizing for most recently was having his State Dept. agree to a line in a recent agreed upon statement with some arab countries that said that Israel’s nukes had to be reckoned with in any nuke-free ME agreement. (And all the pressure Obama was put under to apologize for same and Bibi’s clear concern about same just shows how much in fact Israel *is* responsive to even the slightest U.S. Prez. movements.) Besides that the Prez could on any day he wished order the Justice Dept. to go against AIPAC to have it register as a foreign lobby. Or he could declare Justice to review whether the law against the U.S. providing arms to nuke countries that don’t abide by the NPT is being violated (as it most certainly is) in the case of Israel. Or he could … well, it’s just meaningless to go on. All alone, in innumerable ways, even if Congress opposed the hell out of him, he could effect if not a 180 degree reversal of our policy then at least a 100 degree reversal I believe. Presidents under our Constitution are the *sole* official representatives of the U.S. in foreign affairs, so just think of all that could possibly mean in all its depth and means.
And as to not being able to get Congress to go along, who knows? I for one sensed a lot of satisfaction from the AIPAC-bullied Congresspeople when Obama at least started out right. And as someone smart here has observed (potsherd?) one just knows that if Obama came out and demanded Congress go along with cutting arms and support to Israel (not mentioning some of which he probably could do alone even given the way those laws are written), and coupled this with talk about how Israel is hurting U.S. interests, I too have no doubt about the roar of support he would get from the public to put the arm on Congress. Just think of the argument’s dynamics even: The Prez. saying X hurts us … versus AIPAC and Israel merely saying “ah but it helps us….” Not even a freaking contest.
And as to any or all of this not affecting Israel anyway, this seems to me to be utterly unrealistic. The amount of support that the U.S. gives to Israel, the variety of such support, the utter lack of support Israel gets elsewhere (having put all its eggs in our basket) … and indeed the actual, fanatic and microscopic attention Israel pays to the U.S. just tells a completely different tale. Of course you’d have those in Israel who would not only say it wouldn’t affect them but indeed would believe that, but reality is reality and the Israelis are hardly known for their soft-headedness. Having put all their eggs in our basket, all except the positively insane Israel would, in short order, and after getting over their shock and anger, have to come to grips with all that a hostile U.S. might mean to them. *Instantly* even if the Prez. so wanted; say, by announcing he was thinking of asking Justice to investigate whether giving money to the settlers wasn’t aiding terrorist organizations.
——
Putting all this aside though, as I said before about the Professor’s argument the far more fundamental and major point is that it just utterly seems to be based on the idea (because he mentions nothing else) that we should give Obama’s supine attitude towards Israel a pass because … it only hurts Israel. But the fact is it doesn’t. It hurts us too, tremendously. Maybe even accounting for the two wars we are in, the third we are threatening with Iran, almost certainly to some degree to 9/11, probably to any future terrorism directed against us and therefore the further we sink into imperialism and colonialism, our budgetary problems resulting from Iraq and Afghanistan, and all the rest, and on and on and on.
Again, however, to none of this does Professor Slater mention anything, and instead at best seems to say … ah but doing *anything* to oppose what Israel is doing will so hurt Obama that it would cause even *greater* damage to us by … letting the Republicans in…. (Horrors!)
First of all and again I don’t believe it. There’s lots of littler stuff Obama could do that wouldn’t hurt him at all I don’t think. Certainly no worse than he’s already “hurt himself” with his jewish constituency and donors. And then again there’s my belief that if he went big time standing up for the national interest the additional *support* he’d receive would *far* outweigh what support he’d lose. Again … do we really believe that the public would side with Bibi and AIPAC crying for more support over the U.S. Prez. saying that what they want hurts the U.S. and our troops? Nuts.
Moreover, what in the world would be the “greater damage” that the Republicans would inflict if, say, they did capture the House of Rep.’s or worse? Seems to me one *helluva* lot of our current problems can be traced in one way or another to our ME policies and actions. One *helluva* lot, including the monetary. And now Obama has just encouraged nuke proliferation too by agreeing to exempt Israel’s nukes from any consideration. So what does Professor Slater think is so much more important than this? Preventing the Republicans from lowering the tax rate on capital gains? No wonder he doesn’t say.
I respect Professor Slater, but I think what he’s given in to is the not-unknown phenomenon of justifying doing anything on the basis that your opponents are so bad that anything goes, but thereby turning yourself at best into mere carbon copies of your opponents if indeed they really *are* doing the same.
Again, if the Republicans *were*, say, to launch a war purely and simply because they thought that this would disadvantage the Democrats—something I don’t think you can say they have because I think in the main they *believed* in the stupid wars they have launched—I sincerely doubt Professor Slater would just say that such a thing was within the acceptable bounds of political actions. Instead I suspect he’d be calling for impeachments and prosecutions—justifiably.
Reconsider, Professor, reconsider. In mad times it’s very difficult not to go mad oneself, but almost certainly one will, after some time has gone by, not feel very proud of oneself for having let it happen.
The great irony is that all Obama’s pandering is going to get him is a Republican Congress in 2010. link to blogs.wsj.com
Sic semper traditoribus
Dwight Eisenhower was able to force Israel to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula after the Suez war in ’56 despite the opposition of Congress. He appealed over Congress’s head to the American people in an address on TV, and he prevailed.
Obama reminds me of Joan of Arc or the Children’s Crusade: nice folks, hearts in the right place, just not practical and way inexperienced.
They inspire the hell out of folks who (a) follow them and (b) wind up dead for their troubles.
At what point does one say that good intentions are not enough? When you realize you are a bit player in “The Great Depression 2: Return of the Bankstas”?
I would criticize Slaters arguments thusly:
Whatever Obama can or can’t change in respect to Israel – what the heck do you, Mr. Slater, think he’s done for his liberal constituency? Close Guantanamo? No. End the Iraq War, like he promised (“you can take that to the bank”)? No.
Instead, he tortures on, refuses to provide any judicial accountability for his government’s actions, has chosen what must be one of the most criminal Chief of Staffs to date (who gets favors from BP, no less), not changed the dangerous, incompetent behavior of the Mineral Management Service (which was supposed to control offshore drilling, but instead ordered hookers and coke), bailed out the banks with YOUR tax money, and what else.
You, Mr. Slater, make Obama out to be a genuine liberal, a citizens’ servant, who, if he would just be left alone by our demands to hold Israel accountable, would turn the US into a liberal, citizen-oriented system and would return the government to the people.
He has not done that, he does exactly the opposite, he continues government against the people, not giving a shit about ordinary citizens. So why bother “protecting” him from demands for justice? What’s wrong with demanding that Obama at least apologizes publicly to the family of that 19 year old kid from New York, Furkan Dogan, because our best ally had to execute him with 4 bullets to the head?
Another great piece at Parliament of Fowles.
link to mantiqaltayr.wordpress.com
RE: “I meant the term to apply not merely to Obama’s Israeli policies, but more broadly to his overall political dilemma…” – Jerome Slater
RHETORICALLY SPEAKING: I’m sorry, but I still don’t understand. Is “Obama’s Dilemma” akin to “Sophie’s Choice”, or what?
I need to run now because I have to watch my “stories” on TV all afternoon. I just can’t believe they’re cancelling As the World Turns!
Building on what Sin Nombre, lysias, and other commenters have already said:
As I see it, the fundamental problem with both Professor Slater’s original blog and today’s defense of it is that they take the current ideological climate and political balance as given and then ask what Obama can do. If you accept that given, Slater’s answer is indisputable.
But what if Obama, like Eisenhower in 1956-57, actually took the offensive and tried to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to *change* the politics of the situation?
I’m not talking about him endorsing Hamas or even calling for a secular democratic state with equal rights for everyone who lives there (what a crazy radical idea!). But what if he went on TV and said:
“Look, we love Israel, we have long-standing ties to Israel, we remember the Holocaust, we’re not going to abandon them, Judeo-Chtristian values, blah blah blah. But what they’re doing is just crazy – it’s endangering them and us and everyone else. Everybody knows what has to happen if there’s ever going to be peace in the Middle East: as a first step, Israel has to get out of all the territory they conquered in 1967. That’s been the official policy of the US government and almost every other government for the last 43 years, and it’s enshrined in dozens of UN resolutions (Security Council resolutions we supported as well as General Assembly votes we opposed), rulings of the World Court, etc.
“But the Israelis have been playing us all for fools throughout those 43 years, stringing us along, defying the UN, rattling on about a “peace process” that’s all process and no peace – and all the while continuing to steal more and more Palestinian land every week.
“Worse, they’ve done it all on our dime – we’ve already given them between $100 billion and $300 billion (depending on how you calculate) of *your* taxpayer dollars, not to mention the billions more we spend every years to buy off the dictators of Egypt and Jordan. Per capita, we give every Israeli man, woman, and child more than $400 a year, compared to $21 per Haitian, and $14.50 per African – even though Israel is now one of the 25 richest countries in the world.
“All this makes no sense, and I’m not going to do it anymore. We’re ending the military aid, and we’re not going to give them cover at the UN any more. And I’m going to repeat what Dwight Eisenhower said in 1957: either they get out of the territory they’ve seized illegally or we put economic sanctions on them until they do.”
Obviously Obama isn’t about to do anything like that. But if he did, I’m sure he’d have enormous support from much of the public, and even some of Congress would come around. Sure, it would be a political gamble, but it’s either that or continue the status quo. And if he took similarly bold progressive positions on other issues – taxing the rich, putting the unemployed to work rebuilding our infrastructure and converting to clean energy, etc. – and really set out to convince and mobilize the American people behind that program, he just might win.
And if not, we wouldn’t be any worse off than we are now, and he’d be recognized around the world and in history as a hero.
Count me as one who basically agrees with Slater’s thesis that Obama has no room to change course on this issue at all, let alone to a satisfactory degree.
But I’d like to ask Mr. Slater, would there be any hope if Obama were to win a second term? Is there any potential for him to gain more leeway to deal with this issue?
I’m going to make a general reply later tonight, but for now, in answer to Robin’s question: I suppose that a second term for Obama would somewhat reduce his political incentive to avoid a losing battle, but not entirely. Moreover, as I wrote in my original blog on this issue, we simply don’t know how much of Obama’s waffling on the Israel issue is a function of his own underlying genuine if misguided pro-Israel views, as opposed simply to the politics of the issue. My hunch is that both play important roles in what he says and does, so if that is correct the chances of change later might also rest on the chances that he will become better educated on the realities of Israel’s behavior.
Jerome: You say the Republicans are yahoos and reptilian. Fine. But what makes Obama and the Democrats anything but the same thing? Are you judging him by his actions or his rhetoric? His actions are more anti Palestinian anti Muslim and anti Arab than Bush’s ever could be. Stop justifying anything the Democrats do by saying “oh the Republicans would be worse, we have no choice!”. When one acts like a reader of teen bop who doesnt hold their elected leaders responsible for the promises they make and the expectations you have of them, you only perpetuate the problem and have only yourself to blame for Obama’s lack of progressive politics.
Since when is it your job to make excuses for the most powerful person on the planet? This type of stuff is as embarrassing as it is destructive.
I’d like to make a last general reply to today’s criticisms.
1. Civil liberties and other non-Israeli issues. I don’t know enough about the issues to have a strong opinion on the justifiability of Obama’s continuation of some of Bush’s actions in “the war on terrorism.” That said, I would make a couple of points. First, I am not a civil liberties absolutist—I accept the possibility that when genuine national security issues are involved, it might be necessary to restrict certain civil liberties with respect to certain people or groups. Not knowing enough, I can’t say whether or not Obama’s actions fall into this category.
Second, Bush was an obvious fool, both intellectually and morally; Obama is anything but. For that reason, I consider it at least possible that to the extent that Obama is continuing some of Bush’s policies, there might be good or at least defensible reasons to do so. Not even Bush could have been wrong about everything. Since I don’t know enough, I say there “might” be good reasons for Obama’s unwillingness to end all of Bush’s policies, nothing more. However, I can’t resist saying that I am not confident that some of Obama’s loudest and most unqualified critics on the left have actually examined the difficult issues and explored with an open mind the rationale for Obama’s actions.
Finally, I would be very wary of the line of argument, common to many of the comments, that says that politicians are all the same, Obama is no different than Bush, what difference does it make whether it’s Republicans or Democrats that are in power, things can’t be any worse, and so forth. Those making this argument clearly regard themselves as having seen through all the superficialities and penetrated to the essence. But they are wrong: in this case cynicism is a form of naivite. The issues are complex, distinctions must be carefully drawn, and so.
We’ve heard this what’s-the-difference nonsense often in the past, for example in Nader’s 2000 campaign, in the absence of which we almost certainly would have had Gore rather than Bush. Or don’t you think that matters?
2. Could Obama do more about Israel? Once again, my critics indignantly point to all kinds of things Obama could say or do to pressure Israel without having to go through Congress—bully pulpit, venting fury, various executive actions, etc. But once again this ignores my arguments: (a) the price, especially in terms of Congressional retaliation on other issues, would be too high, especially since (b) in my judgment, U.S. pressures wouldn’t work anyway, in terms of bringing about substantial changes in Israeli policies.
More on this last point. The 1956 Eisenhower case doesn’t persuade me: what Dwight Eisenhower could do about Congress and the Israel of 1956 says nothing about what Barack Obama could do about Congress and the Israel of 2010.
Indeed, pressures on Israel might not merely fail, they could well make things worse. An Israel deprived of US support might become even more paranoid, rageful, and irrational. It is well established that in the mid-1970s Henry Kissinger worried about this possibility, rightly so in my opinion. Consequently, even if Obama had the power to announce that he was so sick of Israel that he was cutting off all aid—which, of course, he can’t, since the power to appropriate funds for public purposes rests with Congress—it might not be wise to do so. Unless you don’t think there is much to worry about a modern Samson, this time armed with nuclear weapons, striking out against its enemies, real and self-created.
3. The most serious argument against my view, as articulated by Sin Nombre, is that Israel’s policies harm not just itself but U.S. national security, the protection of which is any president’s first responsibility. Not only do I agree, I have been making precisely that argument for at least thirty years—even during the cold war, against the prevailing view (not challenged even by Mearsheimer and Walt) that Israel was a security asset to the U.S then, even if not now.
I probably should have addressed this argument; I didn’t because it is long and complex. Moreover, I am conflicted myself over this issue, but I guess my bottom line is that in the short run I am somewhat more worried about the damage that would be done to the health of American society–and, indeed, to national security–by a Republican dominance than about the damage done to U.S. national security by failing to pressure Israel. Especially since I think that in any case changes in U.S. policy—by this very late date–wouldn’t soon insulate us from a continued backlash in the Islamic world.
I can well understand that you might disagree with me on how these considerations—a gradual positive effect on our national security vs. a rapid negative effect on America at home– balance out, especially since I’m not always sure I don’t disagree with myself.
Over and out.
I’m afraid you’re living in a world based on hypotheticals and nice speeches rather than the world of reality and facts on the ground. You now admit that you’re ok with the president unilaterally disregarding the constitution and removing civil liberties from some people.
The what’s the difference “nonsense” as you call it is anything but. Nader was right in 2000, 2004, 2008 and whenever he speaks about the two party system. It’s been perfectly proven. It’s not theory. Obama has indeed proven a Democrat can murder Muslims as vociferously if not more so than Bush or a Republican. The easy thing to do is to call Republicans stupid and make fun and seem so superior as a Democrat. But, here’s the point: when the actions are the same: killing Muslims, supporting Israel, attacking whistleblowers, etc. does it matter if the person doing so has an R or a D next to their name?
I feel you are entrenched and enmeshed into the system, so you can’t dare criticize it. But, I can. The system in American politics is broken. Try reading A People’s History of the United States to see how bottom up, irrespective of politicians, the people can make a difference.
Stop relying on a powerful messiah savior to change the world. It’s up to you and me to do it.
Prof. Slater,
Your arguments are eloquent, carefully reasoned, and tactfully presented. Your acknowledgement that you don’t have all the answers and sometimes change your mind is most refreshing. Your writings–in my opinion–must be taken seriously by any thoughtful person. I hope to read more of your contributions in the future on this blog.
It’s rather funny that in his latest fine post Professor Slater expresses some … confliction about his own initial proposition because after writing earlier this morning arguing against same I realized that I missed a point that might militate rather heavily in favor of his original idea.
That is, in arguing that Professor Slater’s original idea that Obama is at least justified in not “taking on” Israel more because doing otherwise might help the Republicans I thought this ignored the harm this was actively being done right now to our own national interests. And as noted and in a tribute to his intellectual honesty Professor Slater has now indicated that at the very least this is a complex thing that has to be taken into account.
Before he even wrote his most recent post however I was going to re-post and note that in my argument I did not think of the idea that the Professor could still be right *if* helping the Republicans effectively also means getting us into a war with Iran. (And of course if Obama is resolved *not* to get us into such a war.) Obviously then, Obama essentially laying down with regard to Israel right now isn’t ignoring our national interest at all; it would instead be making an emminently reasonable choice to incur some much smaller harm so as to avoid some much much greater damage.
Quite obviously given the cast of characters still riding herd on the Republicans this isn’t a negligible argument. And even I for one wouldn’t bet a nickel that if, say, John McCain or Sara Palin or indeed almost any of the Republicans whose name springs to the lips when thinking about their Presidential possibilities that we wouldn’t go to war with Iran.
On the other hand however while I don’t think it’s a negligible argument I do think it’s so speculative *at this point* that it still doesn’t put paid in favor of the Professor’s original argument. No reasonably forseeable change in Congress in favor of the Republicans is going to force Obama into a war with Iran, and otherwise he himself isn’t up for reelection for quite some time.
As Shakespeare said, there’s many a slip ‘twixt the cup and the lip.
Moreover, there also seems to be something even more deeply wrong with the dynamic of the argument: After all at bottom isn’t it the idea that because of the damage Obama would suffer at the hands of Israeli partisans he should lay down for Israel … so that the Israeli partisans don’t come to power in the form of the Republicans and go to war with Iran? Seems to me if they want war (and Obama won’t oblige them) they are going to switch on him in the end anyway, no? So why lay down for Israel at all?
Somewhat less fundamentally I’d also still disagree with Professor Slater’s belief that Obama is anyway so helpless vis a vis Israel, but that’s a matter of opinion. (And, in my view imagination too, but….) I would however note that if one accepts Professor Slater’s original idea—which seems to me now to be more in the form of a wonderful, provocative think-piece well worth articulating—there is more to accepting it than just a raw accounting of the tangible things. (Such as assessing damage to the U.S. by Obama not opposing Israel versus the damage done by him doing so and etc.)
I.e., there is the intangible factor of just simply bowing to what amounts to foreign blackmail. Per Professor Slater’s original proposal it seems to me that’s yet another cost that would be borne. Purely and simply saying to a foreign power … “yes, you’ve got me and my political party over a barrel, so meaning I should sacrifice U.S. interests to your will.”
For me at least that’s an (intangible) bridge too far . If there’s any line of Presidential conduct whatsoever, such truckling to a foreign power is something I don’t believe we should ever let a U.S. President forgivably cross, even if he loses. If that’s worth it, after all, then what isn’t? What other ideals or aspirations equal or exceed that of the U.S. at least not truckling to foreign blackmail? To my way of thinking at least, I don’t know that there’s *anything* worth that.
In any event kudos to Professor Slater for doing what is perhaps the hardest thing of all to do in the midst of what can seem an already comprehensively plowed issue which is coming up with an actually bold new idea. We need more academics like him. As some historian once said about Frederick Jackson Turner and his thesis about the American frontier, it wasn’t that he was right that made him so important, it was that his idea was so genuinely new.