Both Democrats and Republicans are more likely to vote for candidates from their own party, regardless of that candidate’s policy positions or commitment to democratic principles.
The Bright Line Watch team is at it again, exploring the resilience of democratic norms in America, as the Trump Presidency, entering its third year, seems ever more cavalier about them. The team—the political scientists John M. Carey and Katherine P. Clayton, at Dartmouth College, Gretchen Helmke, at the University of Rochester, Brendan Nyhan, at the University of Michigan (and of the Upshot, at the Times), Mitchell Sanders, of Meliora Research, and Susan C. Stokes, at the University of Chicago—spent much of 2017 comparing the attitudes of “experts,” a broad swath of fellow political scholars, with those of ordinary voters. (I reported previously on their findings.) This time around, the team has issued a report on a new survey called “Party, Policy, Democracy and Candidate Choice in U.S. Elections,” which probes only the attitudes of ordinary voters—self-identifying Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. The report clearly assumes, but does not state, that common attitudes toward democracy will likely be tested by the 2020 election campaign, and even more so by the Robert Mueller investigation. (Carey and Clayton are my colleagues in Dartmouth’s government department.)

The team asks, “Are there democratic principles that, if violated by politicians, would generate resistance from the public? Are citizens of all political stripes equally willing to punish candidates for such violations?” These are hardly academic questions, but voters’ attitudes are difficult to isolate, let alone weigh, so a little professional ingenuity is in order. You need to determine how attitudes are shaped by party solidarity—by the sense of reassurance that voters feel in their allegiances. You must, as the statisticians say, “control for” aspects of identity besides party affiliation, such as gender, ethnicity, age, and so forth. (Will men support male leaders irrespective of how they lead on issues like tax cuts or respect for the rule of law?) You need to decide which values and policy principles are most characteristic of affiliation with a given party, so that voters can be positioned not only by professed allegiance but in a kind of ideological ecosystem.

Most important, and most challenging, you must determine what democratic norms are crucial, and how to represent them. In this case, the team decided to test for four norms: respect for universal access to voting; willingness to compromise in order to preserve the integrity of institutions; respect for the judicial-criminal processes free of partisan influence; and deference to court decisions, even when these seem wrong. The latter two suggest respect for the rule of law. Again, it is hard to believe that the anticipated Mueller report did not influence the choice of questions.

Read on at The New Yorker

This may seem a rather abstract question, given the headlines, but I suspect that the growing culture war will be front and center once the guns fall silent and for many years thereafter. Thanks to Bennett Windheim for an interesting conversation.

Link to the podcast here.

This was published in early October.  

Benjamin Netanyahu came to the United Nations General Assembly on September 27th to tell the delegates—or, at least, those who hadn’t walked out on him—that his cause is righteous.

Eleven days ago, the C.I.A. director, William Burns, arrived in Cairo to join the negotiations over Gaza, which have also been brokered by Qatar and Egypt. Since then, ordinary Israelis began checking their phones every couple of hours to find out the fate of the “iskah,” Israel’s never-quite-consummated ceasefire deal with Hamas.

On February 22nd, four months into Israel’s ground invasion of Gaza, Benjamin Netanyahu presented his war cabinet with a short document sketching out what, in his view, “absolute victory” looks like. The timing was not surprising. The Israel Defense Forces are poised to attack the southern Gazan city of Rafah, where Israel believes that four of Hamas’s last six battalions are hiding in tunnels and holding what is estimated to be around a hundred still surviving hostages.

For the past two years, at Dartmouth College, I have been co-teaching a course called The Politics of Israel and Palestine with Ezzedine Fishere, a former Egyptian diplomat who served under the United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process. Our work in the class—a civil, exploratory dialogue sustained over eighteen sessions—anchored a series of public forums at the college in the aftermath of the horrors of October 7th.

In August 1975, I stood outside the Knesset, in Jerusalem, witnessing a fevered demonstration against Henry Kissinger, then the American secretary of state. Thousands of young men in knitted kippahs chanted and danced in circles, their arms wrapped around one another, their voices echoing off the stone building. They were mainly West Bank settlers, I was informed, part of a fledgling movement called Gush Emunim—in effect, the Young Guard of the National Religious Party (NRP).

In Tel Aviv, on Thursday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters what President Biden had said passionately earlier this week—that the Administration has “Israel’s back.” For Israelis, mourning more than thirteen hundred murdered in the Hamas and Islamic Jihad attack from Gaza, stunned by the defensive breach, fixed on the fate of an estimated hundred and fifty kidnapped, and mobilizing three hundred and sixty thousand reservists, the Administration’s statements of support were timely.

Since 1977, when Menachem Begin, a founder of the Likud party, became Prime Minister, Israeli leaders liberal enough to entertain a peace process with the Palestinians that could end the conflict have controlled the government for just eight years.

Israel turns seventy-five this week: the ritualized celebrations of patriotic solidarity are, this year, unusually self-conscious and forced. The country is in an escalating culture war, and the festivity seems only a ceasefire.

Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu have been allies, but also, intriguingly, mirror one another. 

That’s not only because both see “strength” as their go-to asset, or at least the con that the political base seems most likely to buy. Each claims to be his nation’s singular guardian against catastrophe. Each turns shamelessness into charisma. Each grew up coddled but plays up resentments for elites.

On Sunday night, the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, fired his defense minister, Yoav Gallant, a reserve major general whose mother had been a Polish refugee on the S.S. Exodus. His offense was patriotism. The night before, Gallant had appeared on prime-time national television, calling for a “dialogue” on the fate of the Israeli judiciary and a temporary “halt to the legislative process” that is, in effect, assaulting it. “The growing rift in our society is penetrating the I.D.F.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s new coalition government, which was sworn in last week, is routinely referred to as “extreme right,” but this tortures the meaning of conservatism in a democracy. Thirty-two of the coalition’s members in the Knesset (out of a hundred and twenty parliamentary seats) are disciples of so-called religious parties, the political arms of theocratic communities.

If the polls are on target, or even slightly off, Tuesday’s election in Israel—the fifth since April of 2019—seems unlikely to settle things down any more than the previous four have. The centrist bloc led by Prime Minister Yair Lapid—who, since June, has been serving in a caretaker role—may deny victory to former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rightist bloc.

On the evening of May 18th, the writer A.B. Yehoshua—“Bulli” to his many friends—climbed onto a Jerusalem stage, heavy on his walker, acknowledging the cheers of an audience that had come out to pay tribute to his work. Three younger writers had just described characters and rhetorical gambits that had inspired them, quoting from among Bulli’s more than 20 novels, story collections, and plays.

Israel’s improbable “change government” has been in power exactly one year this week, a landmark that is primarily a tribute to how its various leaders’ contempt for former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu marginally exceeds their antipathy for one another.

Co-authored with Sidra DeKoven Ezrahi

It is routine to speak of the ancient Temple Mount as Judaism’s holiest site, a claim confounded only by its being Islam’s third-holiest site. A new Israel Democracy Institute poll tells us that half of Jewish Israelis sympathize with expansion of prayer services on the Mount’s plateau, though most of those tie their sympathy to their aspiration to political sovereignty.

On Monday, the U.S. Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, joined the foreign ministers of Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt, and Morocco for a meeting at Sde Boker, the retirement kibbutz and burial place of David Ben-Gurion, the nation’s first Prime Minister.

On Saturday night, while Russian forces entered the Ukrainian city of Volnovakha, and blocked convoys of food and medicine intended for the nearby besieged city of Mariupol, Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s President, called Naftali Bennett, the Israeli Prime Minister. The two spoke for more than an hour and discussed, Zelensky tweeted, “Russian aggression and the prospects for peace talks”—which, earlier in the day, Zelensky had suggested might take place in Jerusalem.

Last Wednesday, with the news that Vladimir Putin had launched an invasion of its neighbor, Israel’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement concerning “steps taken in eastern Ukraine” and endorsing the principle of “territorial integrity.” The statement didn’t even mention Russia, which rankled the Ukrainian Embassy in Tel Aviv. “We just really hope that they will do something that sounds the same as our Western allies,” an Embassy spokeswoman said.

The ceasefire between Hamas and Israel went into effect at 2 a.m. local time on Friday, and seems to be holding. Israelis woke up to their military claiming to have “achieved all our operational goals.” Many Gazans, in turn, celebrated in the streets through the night—among them Khalil al-Hayya, a leader of Hamas’s slate in the now essentially cancelled Palestinian parliamentary elections, whose home in Gaza City was bombed. “This is the euphoria of victory,” he said.

At 6:03 p.m. on Monday, right on time, air-raid sirens sounded over Jerusalem. Hamas’s normally secretive military head, Mohammed Deif, abetted by a spokesman for the Qassam Brigades, which Deif commands, had issued a warning.

The Israeli election that was held on March 23rd, the fourth such contest in two years, may have seemed yet another referendum on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership. But that is not quite right. This was a referendum, also, on Netanyahu’s Big Lie, which is not, like Donald Trump’s, about voter fraud, but about whether Israel’s judicial professionals—the police, the state prosecutor, and the Attorney General—contrived an élite-leftist putsch against him.

On June 12, 1995, Quebec held a referendum on independence from Canada. The "No" vote was 50.58 percent and 49.42 percent voted "Yes." Imagine there had been a swing of three-quarters of a percent, and Quebec had become a sovereign state with a population of eight million people, about 80 percent of whom were French-speaking Roman Catholics – most of whom fancied themselves the true "Quebecois" – founding the only overwhelmingly Catholic commonwealth in North America. 

Keep this going.

This episode is a recording of an APN webinar with Bernard Avishai and Sam Bahour, the co-authors of a recent New York Times article laying out the benefits of an Israeli-Palestinian confederation, as a possible version of a two-state solution.

Politicians and experts should not doubt a two-state solution. But they should finally consider a plausible version of it. 

Donald Trump has left the Biden administration myriad international crises, and nowhere more obviously than in Israel and the Palestine Authority. Mr. Trump dismantled relations with the Palestinian side and greenlighted an extremist Israeli government to act as it pleased, ratifying Israel’s exclusive claim to Jerusalem and its continuing settlement project.
About Me
Blog Archive
Blog Archive
Subscribe
Subscribe
The Tragedy of Zionism
The Tragedy of Zionism
The Tragedy of Zionism
"A must for every serious student of Zionism...ventures where few have had the courage or insight to go." -- Amos Elon
The Hebrew Republic
The Hebrew Republic
The Hebrew Republic
"Wise, humane and important..." The New York Times
Audio 'Hebrew Republic' Lecture
Book a lecture
Book a lecture
Book a lecture
bavishai@gmail.com
Promiscuous: On Portnoy's Complaint
Promiscuous: On Portnoy's Complaint
Promiscuous: On Portnoy's Complaint
"rich... meditative... informed... an engaging companion to 'Portnoy's Complaint' as well as an important contribution to scholarship." -- -- Times Literary Supplement
'Promiscuous' Radio
A New Israel
A New Israel
Featured Articles
Articles Archive
Popular Posts
Popular Posts
  • Is the euro bad for Greece? "I’ve never seen Europe in such dire straits," Roger Cohen writes in yesterday's Times . "Gr...
  • Nobody's asked, but I think I know how President Obama can turn things around. In a way (I shudder to think), it mirrors how Newt Gin...
  • I can't prove this, but I sense (forgive me) a paradigm shift among Israelis, a new way of talking to accommodate the anomalies emerging...
  • Over the past six months, a number of influential articles have raised the question of whether a two-state solution is, or was ever, feasib...
Loading
Dynamic Views theme. Powered by Blogger. Report Abuse.