By Larry Gordon
It is becoming increasingly apparent that, more than any other movement or political philosophy that exists out there, it is the leftists that are the most intolerant and unyielding of all. And what a fundamental contradiction and hypocrisy-filled double standard this is.
It’s been said in many media forums but deserves to be articulated here. Can you just imagine the response from the media and even law enforcement if Hillary Clinton had been victorious on November 8 and supporters of Donald Trump took to the streets around the country to protest her victory? Police would have been mobilized in all these locales in which protests were taking place and leadership in these cities would most likely direct that law and order be applied and restored so that our constitutionally chosen leader could go about the business of leadership.
Now, however, with the Trump victory on Election Day and with a nice orderly transition in full swing, it seems that the leopard has rearranged its spots and traditional roles are in the process of being reversed. The other night at the Zionist Organization of America dinner in midtown Manhattan, one of the honorees, famed attorney Alan Dershowitz, stated in his remarks that in his estimation the presidential election was a tie. He explained his position by saying that while Mr. Trump won the electoral vote, Mrs. Clinton had won the popular vote.
This is an absurd as well as counterfactual assertion that only a worn-out and beaten-down legal mind could conjure up. A look at the Electoral College map shows that the heartland in the United States voted solidly for Mr. Trump and signed on to his commitment to herald a change and departure from the failing enterprise that the U.S. has become under Barack Obama—and that Hillary Clinton had pledged to enhance and continue.
But there is another matter at hand in the aftermath of the Trump win. As Mort Klein of the ZOA said the other night at the Grand Hyatt, “The truth is not a political position.” Actually, the left is going through a recovery of sorts. They were so sure that Hillary was going to be president and that beating Trump could be accomplished with her hands tied behind her back and her eyes closed—but were they ever wrong. The heartland of America was not duped by Barack Obama’s consistent deceptions or Clinton’s insincere pandering and rhetorical commitments to people who want to weaken America like Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
But now, in the aftermath of the Democratic Party evisceration, there is a new problem, and it goes by a familiar name—Chuck Schumer. Many in this community and others know Senator Schumer well and also like him. His support on issues that are near and dear to the Jewish community is reliable and consistent. It may have all been choreographed in advance, but President Obama even allowed Mr. Schumer to vote against the Iran nuclear deal which poses a long-term threat to the existence of Israel, while numerous other Democrats were not allowed the same pass.
The permission to vote against the deal was granted when the White House was made to understand the composition of Mr. Schumer’s core area of support in New York, his close relationship with Jewish community leaders over many decades who opposed the agreement, and his hallmark proclamation that he alone was the “guardian of Israel” in the U.S. Congress.
Senator Schumer could have voted with the president, curried some favor with Mr. Obama like Congressman Jerrold Nadler did, and he still would have won reelection in the resounding fashion that he did.
Chuck Schumer has maintained that his credo and his convictions are all right there packed into his name. As the senator has said and repeated many times to Jewish audiences everywhere, he considers himself the “Shomer Israel”—committed to protecting the Jewish people and the Jewish state. But wait a minute—something is happening now as power in Washington is being realigned, and it doesn’t look all that pretty.
Schumer was probably salivating over what was assumed to be the certainty of a Clinton presidency. That was going to assure him Senate leadership in what he hoped would be a regained Democratic majority in the Senate.
But, luckily for us, that was not to be. Actually, it’s difficult to figure out what Mr. Schumer is really about or if any of his policies, outlooks, or convictions are rooted with any depth at all. Or does Chuck Schumer just change his mind depending on the situation at hand?
Even more troubling in the aftermath of the Democrats being defeated across the board in DC is Schumer’s support of Minnesota congressman Keith Ellison to be the next leader of the Democratic National Committee. Ellison is a controversial figure and a severe critic of Israel. In his earlier life, he had an association with the Nation of Islam and the virulently anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan. Over his years in Congress, Ellison has fought and campaigned to defeat other Democratic congressmen like Steve Rothman of New Jersey, a strong supporter of the Jewish state.
Ellison has spoken in support of terror groups like Hamas, has voted against U.S. funding of the Iron Dome defense system that has saved Israeli lives, and is critical of Israel at every turn. Why is the Shomer Israel, Chuck Schumer, supporting Ellison’s ascent to Democratic leadership?
Apparently after being so roundly defeated on November 8, having failed to respond to voters’ concerns on matters of the economy and security, the leaders of the Democratic Party have made the decision that instead of moving more toward the center, they would move even more to the extreme left. Who are the Democrats and their minority leader, Mr. Schumer, talking to? The Electoral College will not allow Democrats to control areas outside of metropolitan New York, California, and other scattered East and West Coast locations. The extreme left appeals to the extreme left, and that’s about it.
The left-leaning centrists have seen through the fakeness and deceptiveness of leftist positions. But there is another consideration here—what Mr. Obama said last week on his trip to Greece. He said that it appeared to him that most of the folks in America thought that he did a pretty good job. Not really.
On the day the president returned from Europe, he presided over the presentation of Presidential Medals of Freedom to 21 Americans. Amongst those chosen for this distinction were Diana Ross of the Supremes, Vin Scully, the former play-by-play man of the Los Angeles Dodgers, and Bruce Springsteen. These people all have something in common. They actually did a pretty good job. v
Comments for Larry Gordon are welcome at editor@5tjt.com.