The US Capitol, East Front. (Photo: Architect of the Capitol)
Nov. 15, 2023 by David Silverberg
Southwest Florida’s congressional representatives split yesterday, Nov. 14, when voting for a measure to fund the government and avoid a shutdown. Reps. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.) and Greg Steube (R-17-Fla.), voted against it. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-26-Fla.) voted for it.
The measure, House Resolution 6363, funds some government agencies through Jan. 19, 2024 and others through Feb. 2. The bill, a continuing resolution (CR), allows the government to keep functioning past its previous deadline of this Friday, Nov. 17, at midnight.
The bill passed by a vote of 336 to 95, with 209 Democrats and 127 Republicans approving it. Ninety-three Republicans and 2 Democrats voted against it.
Donalds and Steube are both members of the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus, which came out against the measure.
Prior to the vote Steube posted on X: “We cannot continue to spend ourselves into oblivion. The Republican House is the only chance our country has in getting back on a fiscally responsible trajectory. The Senate surely isn’t going to do it and this White House wants more spending without offsets. We must stand for spending cuts, not CRs.
“We must stand with the American people and not compromise our principles. For that reason, I will NOT support the CR to continue Nancy Pelosi’s reckless spending. We must stand and stand firm.”
(For the record: Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-11-Calif.) is no longer in the Democratic congressional leadership. She was one of three members who did not vote on this measure. The other two, Reps. Jacob Auchincloss (D-4-Mass.) and Mike Quigley (D-5-Ill.), did not vote in order to protest the absence of funding for Ukraine in the bill.)
As of this writing neither Donalds nor Diaz-Balart had issued explanations of their votes on any online platform.
Funding for Ukraine, Israel and other defense and foreign policy purposes will be presented in a separate bill.
The bill has now been sent to the Senate where it is expected to swiftly pass and be sent to President Joe Biden for signature.
It wasn’t a tsunami but the wave of election victories for Democrats and abortion rights supporters that occurred last night, Tuesday, Nov. 7, certainly hit Florida’s shore with more force than the usual off-year ripple.
The two biggest implications: first, Trumpist, Make America Great Again (MAGA) extremism is not a winning approach in the rest of the country and may not fly in Florida in 2024. Secondly, abortion is a YUUUGGGGE issue and may just rock the Sunshine State next November as well.
Until now Republican primary candidates, presidential and otherwise, have been playing to the extreme Trumpist wing of the Party. But after last night, Republican candidates—in Florida and elsewhere—should be wondering if they’ll be able to shake the Etch-A-Sketch and make the full electorate forget the nastiness, brutishness and extremism they espoused to get their nominations.
A Democratic night
It was a great night for Democrats. In otherwise conservative Republican Kentucky, Gov. Andy Beshear (D) won re-election with 52 percent of the vote. In Virginia, Democrats took both the state House and Senate. In Ohio, abortion rights supporters won on Issue 1 with 57 percent of the vote.
In Mississippi a Republican governor did hang on. Gov. Tate Reeves (R) kept his seat with 52 percent of the vote.
Florida had no major elections but in a telling vote for Southwest Florida, two Democratically-endorsed candidates for Venice city council unseated incumbents.
Joan Farrell and Ron Smith were both elected to non-partisan seats.
In Punta Gorda, city council incumbent Mark Kuharski was defeated by Deborah Lux, who had the Republican Party endorsement.
Largely overshadowed by the gubernatorial and legislative races was the widespread repudiation of extreme Moms for Liberty (MFL) efforts to dominate local school boards. As reported by The Daily Beast website, MFL-endorsed candidates were defeated in school board races in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Iowa, Minnesota and North Carolina. Only in Alaska did a MFL-endorsed school board candidate succeed.
2024 implications
While these results need to be taken in their immediate context it’s almost impossible not to think through their implications for the 2024 presidential race and the wildly contentious Republican nominating process.
On a national level, it would seem that despite all the denigration and disparagement of President Joe Biden by Republican politicians, to the degree that he influenced local races at all, his performance and positions boosted rather than detracted from Democratic efforts.
A major Republican presidential primary debate will be taking place tonight in Miami and it will be interesting to see how the five candidates adjust their pitches in light of yesterday’s results.
Until now, the entire momentum among the Republican contenders has been to keep trending more extreme, more outlandish and more radical to appeal to ever-more rabid MAGAs. This may have hit a nadir when Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) promised in August to “start slitting throats on Day 1” of federal public servants if he became president. However, one never knows how much lower he and the others may go. There may be new depths to be plumbed.
Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump will, as is his habit, be skipping the debate to hold a rally and harangue in Hialeah.
(Actually, from a purely political perspective it’s not a foolish move: Hialeah is home to a large population of Venezuelan-Americans. It makes sense to speak there to continue his inroads into the Hispanic population and specifically pitch victims and refugees from Venezuelan oppression—although it’s at odds with his well-known hatred of asylum-seekers and immigrants, whom he equates with snakes. It will be interesting to see how—or if—Hialeahans reconcile the dissonance.)
More than defining the likely outcome of that election, last night’s results highlight the challenges to each party, its leaders and its adherents for the next 362 days until the 2024 election. Both sides have work to do.
Democrats have to maintain their momentum, build their base and get more of their partisans registered and to the polls. Biden has to guide the country through two wars, economic challenges, potential party fragmentation, coalition weakening and promote a sense of strong and capable personal leadership.
Republicans have to somehow sell the broad American public a likely Trump nomination regardless of his indictments and even convictions. They cannot abandon their clearly unpopular anti-abortion stance. The party’s fanatical MAGAism and policy positions are marginal and becoming even more extreme as time goes on. As evidenced by the chaos in the Republican-dominated House of Representatives, they have shown an inability to govern when in power. They will bear the burden of blame if they fail to keep the government open when current funding expires. They are isolationist in foreign policy except when it comes to Israel and would abandon Ukraine to Russian conquest. They host a significant faction that would demolish the wall of separation between church and state.
All that is a tough sell. As last night’s results show, so far the American public isn’t buying it.
At this point in time it’s almost impossible to calculate how it will all play out in Southwest Florida. As deeply conservative and Trumpist as the region is, as far as it is from the federal government and national considerations, traditional Republicans and non-party affiliated voters, whether of recent arrival or longtime residency, seem increasingly disillusioned with the MAGA program, as evidenced in the Venice election results.
The biggest, baddest issue hasn’t even come into play yet: whether the United States will remain a democracy. Without a doubt, a second Trump presidency will mean a dictatorship that dissolves all checks and balances, allows one very unstable individual virtually unlimited power and potentially imposes a theocratic totalitarianism on a constitutional, secular nation.
Although Biden has long stated that he’s in a fight to save the soul of America, to date the issues and stakes haven’t been framed in clear and stark terms of freedom versus oppression. When they are—and they will—it could tip the electoral balance.
One truism that last night’s elections showed clearly: the only poll that matters is the one counted on election night.
The Roman Senate is addressed by Cicero as it debates the expulsion of one of its members, Cataline, for plotting to overthrow the republic. (Painting: Cesare Maccari, 1889)
Nov. 5, 2023 by David Silverberg
This coming Wednesday, Nov. 8, if all goes as scheduled, Republican presidential candidates will gather in Miami, Florida at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts of Miami-Dade County for their third, nationally televised debate.
This one will be hosted by the NBC network and moderated by anchors Lester Holt, Kristen Welker and Hugh Hewitt, a conservative radio talk show host. It will have the legitimacy of a traditional, mainstream media event, so no matter how anti-media the candidates have been, they cannot escape its credibility and real impact.
It’s not clear as of this writing which candidates will qualify to be on stage. But what is almost 100 percent certain is that the leading Republican candidate, former President Donald Trump, will deliberately be absent.
“I’m up 56 Points, so the Debates would seem to be a complete waste of time,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform on Sept. 28. “The Debates should be ENDED, BAD for the Republican Party!”
As usual, Trump completely misunderstands the nature and value of debate. He prefers to have people unquestioningly obey his own dictatorial dictums. He’s most comfortable delivering his rambling, stream-of-consciousness harangues to an utterly accepting audience of believers.
However, his dismissal of debate is also revealing of how trivial and superficial political debate in America has become. This is a pity because debate is the very essence of democracy, indeed, of non-violent discussion and change.
So with a major, if crippled, debate coming to Florida’s shores, it’s perhaps a good time to examine the nature of debate, its value and its elemental place in the democratic process.
The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines debate as “a contention by words or arguments” and “a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides.”
As a verb, to debate is “to argue about” and “to engage (an opponent) in debate” or “to turn over in one’s mind: to think about (something, such as different options) in order to decide.”
There are many kinds of debate in many fields. But when it comes to candidate debates, at its core, a debate’s real purpose is to give voters the opportunity to examine and weigh candidates, their records and proposals in an absolutely equal, apples-to-apples setting. Voters should emerge from a debate informed, enlightened and ready to make a reasoned, intelligent choice at the ballot box.
It’s not the screaming or the insults or the horserace or even the resulting poll numbers that make a debate worthwhile. It is the education of the public.
Of course, that’s not how it has always played out and certainly not recently.
The cornerstone
Free, open and unfettered debate pervades all democratic governance, whether in legislative lawmaking, executive rulemaking or in citizen selection of governing officials, i.e, elections.
From the very beginning of democracy in Athens, Greece, through the Roman Republic to our own time, debate is essential to government decisionmaking.
This was embodied in the very first official document of what would become the United States of America, the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Reaching that “consent of the governed” can only be achieved through debate.
There can be debates over different courses of action in autocracies but those debates are usually limited to a few councilors around the autocrat, who makes a decision in his own mind and then imposes it on everyone else.
Throughout American history there were debates of enormous consequence: the Constitution itself was forged through debate; the country was held together through compromises in 1820 and 1850 after debates over nullification of federal law and the expansion of slavery.
Perhaps the greatest example and archetype of all American political debates were those held between Republican challenger Abraham Lincoln and Democratic Sen. Stephen Douglas in 1858. Held in each of Illinois’ nine congressional districts, the debates largely covered the question of slavery’s expansion and received saturation coverage from the nation’s newspapers, elevating Lincoln to national status.
As an incumbent, Douglas was initially reluctant to debate. But he was branded a coward by his opponents and the newspapers, forcing his hand. There was a penalty to be paid for dodging debate.
Douglas defeated Lincoln for the US Senate seat for Illinois, which was decided by the state legislature. Lincoln went on to win the presidency in 1860. But importantly, their debates set the archetype for candidate campaigning and proper conduct in American elections until our own time.
Television and trivialization
Debates have been a cornerstone of American election ritual at all levels of government. So routine and fundamental were they that singers Simon and Garfunkel mocked them in the song “Mrs. Robinson” when they listed ordinary, banal activities: “Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon, Going to the candidates debate.”
What has happened over time, though, is the gradual trivialization of what should be serious discussions and an ever-growing media obsession with the horse race aspects. As soon as the screen fades to black after a debate there’s an obsession by pundits and politicians with who “won” the debate. Politicians gather in “spin rooms” off the debate stage to influence media coverage. There’s little to no real analysis of policies, positions or records. After all, that stuff is boring.
The trivialization seems to have begun with the introduction of television. The first televised presidential debates came in 1960 between Democratic Sen. John Kennedy and Republican Vice President Richard Nixon. While the debate covered policy substance (and people listening on radio thought that Nixon won on points) Nixon’s perspiration and five o’clock shadow were thought to have lost him favor with the audience.
Clever comebacks and bon mots have always been an element of debate and they certainly have an impact on voters. When in 1984 Republican President Ronald Reagan debated Democratic former Vice President Walter Mondale, he torpedoed the issue of his age (73) with the line: “I want you to know I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” Mondale was no stranger to his own deft thrusts. Earlier that year he skewered the lack of policy substance in his primary opponent during a debate with Sen. Gary Hart by asking him, “Where’s the beef?”
Debates may have become increasingly trivialized but there’s no doubt that their quality plunged in 2016 with the arrival of Donald Trump. His campaign was full of lies and insults and crudeness that spilled onto the debate stage both at the primary and general election levels. He dragged political discourse into a gutter from which it has not arisen to date. The screaming matches of the previous two Republican primary debates are evidence of this.
There’s also no denying that Trump’s performances worked for him with Republican primary voters and won him the nomination. However, given that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2 million votes, it’s debatable whether those same tactics scored in the general election.
But if reasonable debate has been damaged, it’s being damaged further by attacks on the very institution of candidate debate itself.
Southwest Florida and the decline of debate
In 2018 in Southwest Florida’s 19th Congressional District, the coastal area from Cape Coral to Marco Island, incumbent Republican Rep. Francis Rooney was running against Democratic challenger David Holden.
In September of that year the Collier County League of Women Voters set a date for a debate and invited both candidates to attend. Holden accepted immediately. Rooney responded that he had “no availability” on that date—and “no future availability.” What was more, he stated he had no need to debate because “everyone knows my positions.”
In days gone past, a debate would have been held anyway with an empty chair representing the absent candidate—or, as in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the non-debater would have been branded a coward. In any event, refusing a debate would have come with a price paid in public opprobrium and at the voting booth.
That didn’t happen in Southwest Florida. All the institutions that should defend democracy, the civic organizations, the media and other politicians, remained silent and cowed. There was no debate, there was no penalty for Rooney and voters remained uninformed. Rooney never had to defend his record or the policies he was pursuing and voters never saw him face to face with his opponent.
Rooney wasn’t alone. Other Republican candidates that year dodged debates altogether rather than be forced to defend Trump and his policies—and got away with it.
At least in 2020 Trump was forced to debate his Democratic opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, in person, on stage. Trump performed abysmally, coming across as crude, rude, impatient and ignorant.
Even Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), who praised Trump at the time, has now revised his assessment of that debate.
“This is something you have to earn. Nobody is entitled to this,” DeSantis said in a Fox News interview on Sept. 28. “You know, I remember back in 2020, I had a big party in Tallahassee for that first debate that Trump did with Biden. And the reality is Biden beat Trump in that debate—Biden—and I don’t know how you can lose to Biden in a debate, but that happened.”
Now Trump is dismissing debates altogether and calling for their end. His opponents are understandably infuriated. Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has branded Trump “Donald Duck” for ducking previous debates.
DeSantis is saying that Trump is hiding behind a keyboard by issuing social media insults rather than coming out to debate. DeSantis has suddenly become a great advocate of debating.
“You know, it’s one thing to do it behind a keyboard; step up on stage and do it to my face,” he told Fox anchor Bill Hemmer. “I’m ready for it. You used to say I was a great governor. Now all of a sudden you’re saying the opposite. Let’s have that discussion. And I’ll do it, we could do it one-on-one. Let’s do that. And let’s give the American people the choice that they deserve.”
For once, DeSantis is right. Voters deserve the right to see candidates for election—for any office—together, in person, debating the issues, their records and their proposals.
Quite clearly Trump doesn’t want to debate. He’s a terrible performer in a real debate and he just wants to continue his digressive rants to an adoring and unthinking mob. He wants election without having to defend his past or reveal his future. His Trumplike minions running for office down the ballot want similar validation without facing scrutiny.
But more, Trump doesn’t want debate of any kind in any sphere. He tried to overthrow the legislative branch of government where laws are debated. He wants to just dictate his version of reality.
That’s not democracy. That’s dictatorship.
It’s long past time to bring back serious, substantial political debates at all levels. American democracy depends on it.
Trump—and any candidate for any office—should pay a steep price for dodging this basic rite of democracy. Civic organizations like the League of Women Voters need to step up and do their part. They need to make candidates who ignore or avoid debates pay a price. Such candidates should be publicly shamed and debates should proceed without them, using an empty chair. Their opponents should benefit from their absence and cowardice.
It would also be worthwhile if the media tried to bring at least a little more seriousness into their commentary and analysis. It would be beneficial if at least one member of a panel of pundits actually examined what the candidates say in a debate and evaluated the substance of their policy proposals—if they have any.
But most of all, it’s long past time that debates were returned to their fundamental purpose: educating voters and giving them the opportunity to make a rational, informed choice when they consent to be governed. After all, as the saying goes, “elections have consequences” and the results of those elections fundamentally affect every person’s life. People should know what they’re getting.
That kind of education is not to be expected in Miami on Wednesday night. But that doesn’t in any way invalidate the ideal and value of a rational, orderly, substantive debate.
Debate may be an imperfect means of assessing candidates and making decisions. But to paraphrase what Winston Churchill once said of democracy itself, it’s the worst possible means— except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.
The tragedy of Trump’s Complete and Total disrespect
Rep. Byron Donalds and former President Donald Trump in a 2020 Donalds campaign advertisement. (Photo:Campaign)
Oct. 30, 2023 by David Silverberg
Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.) built his brand as “everything the fake news media says doesn’t exist: a Trump supporting, liberty loving, pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment black man.”
That “Trump-supporting” clause is especially important. Time and again Donalds has reaffirmed his vocal, visceral, and vehement love, adoration and worship of former President Donald Trump.
But time and again, especially when Donalds most needed it, Trump has responded with absence, indifference or disinterest.
That was never more apparent than in the most recent battle for Speaker of the House. After initially saying he was going to stay out of the Republican congressional fight, Trump weighed in mightily on behalf of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-4-Ohio) but other members of the caucus resisted. When Republicans next picked Rep. Tom Emmer (R-6-Minn.), Trump felt Emmer was insufficiently worshipful and intervened to defeat him.
Ultimately, all the Republicans coalesced around Rep. Michael Johnson (R-4-La.) and voted him as Speaker, last Wednesday, Oct. 25.
In all of this drama, what Trump never did was endorse or support Donalds who was in the race, then out of the race, then in the race again, then defeated and out for good.
This is nothing new. Trump’s slights and oversights of Donalds have been well documented in these pages over the years. The big question is: why?
Endorsements and their impact
All endorsements in political races are important. An endorsement both sways votes but it also conveys a seal of approval and allegiance. Their timing is also important; an endorsement at a critical moment can make all the difference in a close race.
Trump has made endorsements something of an art form. In the past his endorsement clearly carried enormous weight among a fanatically devoted following who would obey his wishes.
Perhaps the most famous Trump endorsement was of then-Rep. Ronald DeSantis for governor of Florida in 2018. The two men have differing versions of how it came about: DeSantis recalls that he merely asked Trump for his endorsement; Trump says that DeSantis came with tears in his eyes begging Trump to save a failing primary campaign.
However it came about, there is no doubt that the Trump endorsement made an enormous difference in the primary contest, enabling DeSantis to win. In the general election it helped DeSantis barely edge out Democrat Andrew Gillum, the mayor of Tallahassee.
When he endorsed DeSantis, Trump reached down to involve himself in a Republican primary. That was territory where presidents traditionally didn’t go. In the past, party leaders would let primary contests play out at the local level and then endorse the party’s nominee.
But Trump was ready, willing and able to reach way down the ballot with his endorsements in primary and party races. His criterion was based on the candidate’s personal loyalty to him rather than the party or any abstract idea or policy.
In 2020 Trump intervened in other intra-party contests in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Indiana. He even reached way down the chain of command to oust the Republican Party chairman of Ohio for opposing him. No office was too low or obscure to escape his intervention.
In general, during his time in office Trump had a seemingly uncanny ability to elevate candidates and get them elected when he gave them “my complete and total endorsement.”
That’s exactly what Byron Donalds needed in 2020.
The 2020 race
Then-state Rep. Byron Donalds (center) addresses a Trump rally at the Collier County Fairgrounds, Oct. 23,, 2016. (Image: CSPAN)
The 19th Congressional District of Southwest Florida had a particularly tumultuous contest in 2020. After two terms in Congress, Rep. Francis Rooney announced that he would not be running again, this after stating he was open to reviewing Trump impeachment evidence, a high crime and misdemeanor in Republican circles.
Sensing an easy win, at one point a dozen Republican candidates jumped into the primary fight for nomination in the district.
Byron Donalds was just one of these. He had the advantage of already representing the 80th District of the Florida House, a rural district that included the farming, mostly immigrant town of Immokalee.
Donalds had switched from Democrat to Republican after marrying his current wife, Erika, in 2003. After initially dismissing Trump as a “self-promoter” in 2011, before Trump became professionally involved in politics, in 2016 he threw himself into the Trump election effort. He addressed a Trump rally at the Collier County fairgrounds with his own ringing endorsement.
Eventually, the 2020 congressional primary race stabilized at nine candidates, of whom the leaders were state Rep. Dane Eagle and businessman Casey Askar. All vied to out-Trump each other, highlighting their loyalty, extremism and cultic enthusiasm in an effort to win the Make America Great Again (MAGA) voters who would determine the primary winner.
At any point, a Trump endorsement would have determined the outcome.
But for all his intervention in Republican primaries around the country, Trump chose not to get involved in this one. There was an element of caution in Trump’s endorsements by that time. He didn’t want to break his winning streak, so by 2020 he increasingly bet on surer candidates, particularly those who were incumbents or who had no opposition.
Donalds didn’t fall into that category. For a long time Eagle seemed the most likely anointee. Ultimately, there was no Trump endorsement. Donalds barely eked out a victory on his own, with Collier County providing the winning margin.
It was the first time he could have really used a Trump bump but he didn’t get it.
However, once he won the primary Donalds was endorsed by Trump in a Sept. 10 tweet. Trump wrote that he “will be a phenomenal Congressman for the people of Florida!” and “Byron is a Rising Star! He has my Complete and Total Endorsement!” (Capitalization, of course, his.).
Once Donalds was confirmed as the nominee, Trump had a chance to endorse Donalds in person when he came to Fort Myers on Oct. 16, 2020. All the Republican grandees were present.
However, Donalds tested positive for COVID-19 before the event and had to stay away.
Once on stage Trump did shout-outs to DeSantis, whom he compared to Elvis (and praised the thickness of his shoulder muscles), and Reps. Gus Bilirakis (R-12-Fla.) and Greg Steube (R-17-Fla.). Fort Myers Mayor Randy Henderson (who had run for the congressional seat) and Cape Coral Mayor Joe Coviello (R) received praise.
But there was no mention of Donalds.
This was particularly noteworthy given that it was a chance for Trump to promote a prospective Republican member of Congress who would be implementing the Trump agenda in a second term. Of all the people to mention, it was the Republican candidate in the midst of an election race who should have been spotlighted.
But once infected he was rejected. It was as though Donalds had vanished from the MAGAverse.
Donalds won his race anyway. Trump lost his.
The leadership races
Rep.-elect Byron Donalds signs the pledge to overturn the 2020 election. (Photo: Office of Byron Donalds)
Like a good Trumper Donalds voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election. On Jan. 6, 2021 he even attended the “Stop the Steal” rally on the National Mall. He then signed a statement objecting to the election certification and voted against it. Although he later denounced the rioters as “thugs,” he never criticized Trump for inciting the violence.
After the insurrection he faithfully upheld the Big Lie that Trump had won. He put out reams of social media postings and did right-wing media interviews upholding Trumpist orthodoxy.
After Trump’s defeat, Donalds was present when Trump flew into Naples for fundraisers. The first time, on Dec. 3, 2021, Trump stealthily flew into town in the night and held his event at a Naples Airport hangar before departing equally secretively.
The second time, Dec. 4, 2022, occurred with more advanced notice but still at a secret location in Naples. It was more public in its purpose: to support “school choice” and benefit Hurricane Ian victims. Tickets started at $10,000 for individuals. The visit came a day after Trump had called for suspending the US Constitution.
In 2022 Donalds’ re-election run was far less perilous than his initial campaign. Trump endorsed him again, along with numerous other Republican incumbents. Donalds won both his primary and general election races with comfortable margins.
Leadership hopes
Now that he was in Congress for a second term, Donalds had ambitions to rise in the Republican congressional hierarchy.
His first opportunity came in November 2022 when he decided to challenge Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-21-NY) for chairmanship of the House Republican Conference, the third highest position in the caucus leadership. The Conference is the Party’s primary means of communicating its message among the Republican members.
Donalds put together a slick promotional video, titled “Championing Conservative Principles and Ushering In a New Republican Perspective to GOP House Leadership” that presented him as a rising star in the Republican Party. He was the Freedom Caucus candidate for the slot.
This was a time when a Trump endorsement would have made a big difference. But Trump ignored Donalds and endorsed Stefanik, whom he called one of the “greatest warriors” of the America First movement and a “rising star” in the Republican Party. She had joined the chorus of Trumpers condemning Republican members on the January 6 Committee investigating the riot and insurrection.
“Elise has my Complete and Total Endorsement!” Trump wrote. Sure enough, she won against Donalds with a resounding 144 to 44 victory on Nov. 15. Donalds may have been a dedicated Trumper but apparently not dedicated enough.
Trump may have had other things on his mind: the day of the Conference vote was also the day he announced his candidacy for the presidency again.
Donalds’ next opportunity to make a bid for the leadership came on Jan. 7, 2023.
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-23-Calif.) became mired in a struggle to win the House Speakership.
In the midst of the contest Donalds was nominated for Speaker by fellow Freedom Caucus members Reps. Chip Roy (R-21-Texas) and then Lauren Boebert (R-3-Colo.). Donalds’ candidacy lasted eight rounds of balloting.
Once again, a Trump endorsement would have made a significant difference for Donalds. For a moment it appeared that Trump had endorsed Donalds—but Trump shot down the rumor as “Fake and Fraudulent.”
Trump endorsed McCarthy instead. In the end, Donalds withdrew and backed McCarthy as well.
Donalds’ endorsement
Trump was hardly the only one to making endorsements. In 2023 Donalds made a big endorsement of his own.
Given that Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) was planning to run for president, all Florida Republicans were facing a thorny dilemma and a dangerous choice between two vindictive, petty men who didn’t forget slights easily. Donalds had a foot in both camps, having extravagantly praised both politicians.
On Monday, March 20, when Trump announced that he was going to be arrested the next day, Donalds rushed to his defense and re-pledged his allegiance to the embattled former President.
On April 6, Donalds was the first Florida politician to endorse Trump over DeSantis, turning his back on the governor, with whom he had been close, at least in public.
In a lengthy statement Donalds argued that Trump would get the country “back on track, provide strength and resolve and make America great again.” The endorsement made headlines at a critical time in the Republican presidential nominating race.
So Donalds had prominently, publicly and extravagantly made clear his undying fealty and complete subservience to the now-indicted former president. Surely, that love and loyalty would be reciprocated.
Right?
The latest round
McCarthy reigned as Speaker for nine months before being overthrown on Oct. 3, inaugurating three weeks of turmoil and uncertainty. During the course of it, Donalds again made a bid for Speaker.
Initially Rep. Steve Scalise (R-1-La.) was the leading contender. But he abandoned his quest after about a day in the face of fanatical MAGA opposition.
Next up was Rep. Jim Jordan (R-4-Ohio), a loud, rude, disruptive Trumper in the true master’s style. Trump enthusiastically endorsed Jordan, calling him a “STAR” (in all caps!) and arguing “He will be a GREAT Speaker of the House, & has my Complete & Total Endorsement!”
This time, though, the Republican caucus pushed back in the face of threats and bullying by Trump, Jordan and grassroots zealots. Despite the Trump endorsement, after three rounds of voting, Jordan couldn’t clinch the 217 votes needed for Speaker. It seemed that the Trump endorsement magic had worn off among the Republican caucus.
Next up was Rep. Tom Emmer (R-6-Minn.), the House majority whip and the second man in the Republican congressional hierarchy. Initially considered a likely winner and acceptable to Trump, instead Trump turned on him, calling him “totally out-of-touch with Republican Voters” and a “Globalist RINO” (Republican In Name Only). He worked the phones against Emmer.
Emmer’s crime? According to a Politico article, “‘I killed him’: How Trump torpedoed Tom Emmer’s speaker bid,” Emmer had the temerity to criticize Trump for the Jan. 6 riot and insurrection in 2021 and re-posted a Trump comment that the two had always gotten along—which indicated they were closer than Trump preferred.
Trump’s ability to dispose of Emmer indicated that while he might not have the strength to get his preferred candidate elected he still could veto anyone he didn’t like.
With Emmer gone the race became wide open and nine Republicans jumped in—among them, Donalds. He was quickly endorsed by fellow Southwest Floridian, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-26-Fla.) and numerous other Republican Floridians.
As in the nine-candidate race Donalds had faced in Southwest Florida in 2020, a Trump endorsement might have made all the difference.
Trump had shown the strength of his negative voodoo but could he reclaim his past magical powers? Would he cast his spell on Donalds’ behalf? Would he raise the ambitious sophomore to Speaker?
But once again Trump chose to ignore Donalds.
“I am not going to make an Endorsement in this race, because I COULD NEVER GO AGAINST ANY OF THESE FINE AND VERY TALENTED MEN, all of whom have supported me, in both mind and spirit, from the very beginning of our GREAT 2016 Victory. My strong SUGGESTION is to go with the leading candidate, Mike Johnson,” he posted on Truth Social on Wednesday morning, Oct. 25.
Finally, Rep. Mike Johnson (R-4-La.) received enough votes to become Speaker. His ideas might be those of Trump and MAGA world, but his behavior was that of a country club Republican—and much more acceptable to the caucus.
All Southwest Florida Republican congressmen voted for Johnson, including Donalds.
The big question
At every inflection point, when his endorsement could have made a significant difference in Rep. Byron Donalds’ political career, former President Donald Trump has chosen to ignore, overlook and disregard his faithfully loyal, utterly obedient, slavishly adoring acolyte from Florida’s Gulf coast. On this, at least, he has shown a most unusual consistency.
Why?
Why does Donald Trump consistently ignore Byron Donalds? Why does Donald Trump refuse to support Byron Donalds as he seeks to rise up the hierarchy of the Republican congressional caucus? Why does Donald Trump never publicly reward Donalds’ extravagant expressions of fealty? Why is Donald Trump always absent at the critical moments when Byron Donalds needs him most? And why does Donald Trump look Byron Donalds in the face but never seem to see him?
Until Donald Trump provides an explanation, the public can only wonder—and guess.
Byron Donalds embraces Donald Trump at a 2019 awards ceremony in South Carolina. (Image: Donalds campaign)
Seed to Table, the market owned by Alfie Oakes in North Naples, Fla. (Photo: Author)
Oct. 24, 2023 by David Silverberg
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by farmer and grocer Francis Alfred “Alfie” Oakes III against the School Board of Lee County and its members based on its 2020 termination of a contract with his business.
The judgment was handed down on Monday, Oct. 16. It included previously unreported details of the circumstances and decisionmaking leading to the Board’s decision.
The suit was the result of termination of a food supply contract by the Lee School Board on June 11, 2020 following a Facebook posting by Oakes that characterized the COVID-19 pandemic as a “hoax” and denounced George Floyd for his criminal past.
Oakes argued in court that termination of the contract violated his First Amendment rights, violated Oakes Farms’ contract with the school district and violated Florida’s Sunshine Law provisions. He sued the district, the superintendent, the district’s chief procurement officer and the individual members of the school board.
The judge, John Badalamenti of the US District Court, disagreed: “The Court holds that the School District’s termination of Oaks Farms’ food service contract after Mr. Oakes’s June 6, 2020 public speech via his Facebook post on a matter of public concern was not a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the judgment stated.
“Further, as to all individual defendants, they are entitled to qualified immunity and are therefore dismissed from this case with prejudice. Having fully resolved all federal questions pleaded in the operative complaint, the Court dismisses the remaining counts––all Florida state law claims––without prejudice. Should they so choose, Plaintiffs may file such claims in Florida state court.”
(The full, 47-page judgment is available for download at the end of this article.)
Dismissing the federal counts “with prejudice” means they cannot be appealed any further. An entirely new lawsuit in state court can be initiated for the remaining counts covered by state law.
Oakes did not respond to a phone call or e-mail requesting comment on his reaction to the ruling.
The historical narrative
The lawsuit proceeded from a contract that Oakes’ business, Oakes Farms Food & Distribution Services, LLC, had with the School District of Lee County to provide food to the district’s students.
Originally signed in 2018 as a three-year contract with one-year renewal options, it was worth $4.9 million, with the options bringing its total value to $6 million. The contract was renewed on June 2, 2020.
When Minneapolis resident George Floyd was murdered on May 25, 2020 while being arrested, protests broke out throughout the country.
On June 6, 2020, Oakes published a 758-word statement (no longer posted) on Facebook in which he stated “The COVID19 hoax did not work to bring down our great President and now this . . .” and dismissed Floyd as “disgraceful career criminal, thief, drug addict, drug dealer and ex-con who served 5 yrs in prison for armed robbery on a pregnant woman, and spent his last days passing around fake 20’s to store owners in Minnesota.”
The post deplored modern culture. “Now the media, Hollywood and many of our disgraceful politicians want you to be outraged that this career criminal drug abusing thug suffered the consequences of a lifetime of bad choices. Unfortunately the liberal mindset that has been instilled in so many of our young generation has taught them to take no personal responsibility for their actions.” He called protesters “lost souls without any direction or sense of purpose are so easily manipulated to blame others for their lack of self worth.” (The full text of the post is in the judgment.)
The post created an uproar, with 1,400 views the day after posting, 3,000 comments and 877 shares. It led to an online petition calling for a termination of the Oakes Farm contract that was signed by over 17,000 people. Demonstrations were held at the school board building, at Oakes’ Seed to Table grocery store and school board members were inundated with an avalanche of protesting e-mails and phone calls.
On June 11 the board decided to terminate the contract and selected a new vendor, US Foods.
The narrative in the judgment reveals that Oakes’ denunciation of COVID as a “hoax” was a major factor in the Board’s decision to sever ties.
“Well here we are . . .” he wrote of the pandemic. “In the past 3 months I have watched not only OUR country’s economy but the entire world economy brought to ruins for no other reason than multitudes of men and women have allowed themselves to be controlled by deceit and fear. The corrupt world powers and their brainwashing arms of the media have proven the ability to program the masses.”
At the time Lee County public schools were dealing with a severe outbreak of the virus and had even changed food distribution for students from cafeterias to remote locations to avoid contamination.
Oakes’ dismissal of COVID as a “hoax,” his refusal to take any protective measures for the handling, processing and packaging of his produce as well as his defiance of protective measures for his employees alarmed the Board, the superintendent and the chief procurement officer.
When Frederick Ross, the Lee County Public Schools chief procurement officer, called Oakes Farms to check on its COVID protocols, he was sent a sheet of COVID protocols from Marjon Foods, which an Oakes Farms executive claimed as a subsidiary.
As the narrative in the judgment put it: “Mr. Ross explained, ‘[I]n my experience as a procurement professional, when a vendor sends you their protocol, they send it on their documentation, on their letterhead. It has their information in it and within it, and that wasn’t the case here.’ …And Superintendent [Gregory] Adkins testified that he viewed ‘this document on the letterhead of a completely different company, coupled without any representation or assurance that Oakes Farms was following any safety requirements, to be a completely insufficient assurance that Oakes Farms was taking necessary precautions to protect the health, safety, and welfare of our approximately 95,000 students.’”
The Pickering standard
Throughout his judgment Judge Badalamenti applied a standard from a 1968 case, Pickering v. Board. of Education of Township High School District in Will County, Ill., which held that government contractors and employees do not have unlimited free speech if their statements on matters of public concern interfere with the efficient operation of government.
“Here, Plaintiffs argue that the Pickering test does not apply to the facts of this case because Mr. Oakes was not an employee of the School District, and Oakes Farms did not engage in any speech,” wrote the judge. “This argument is misguided because it is well-established that the Pickering test applies to individuals, like Mr. Oakes, who own and operate businesses that contract with the government.”
Also, the judge ruled that Oakes failed to show that his First Amendment rights outweighed the interests of the school board. Oakes’ post “undermined the School District’s ‘desire to ensure the safety of the food supply’” and “contradicted the messages of inclusion and anti-racism that the School District was promoting to its students.”
Lastly, stated the judge, the post “caused protests outside of schools in the district as well as threats to School Board members, which caused School Board members to fear for their safety.”
Ultimately, “After carefully weighing these factors, the Court finds that the School District’s stated interests outweigh Plaintiff’s First Amendment interests. Mr. Oakes’s Facebook post caused the School District to be concerned that the health of its students was not being appropriately minded; it disrupted the School District’s operations as a result of numerous public complaints, numerous requests for comments related to Mr. Oakes’s post from reporters, and a security concern for one of its school board members; and it undermined the school’s mission by contradicting the school’s efforts to promote an inclusive environment cognizant of the fact that many in the Lee County School District community might be upset by the death of George Floyd.”
Both Oakes and the school district requested summary judgments, which are final, decisive decisions in the case. The judge ruled against Oakes, ruled for the school district and dismissed the suits against the individuals associated with the school district, handing the defendants a decisive victory.
To read and download the entire 47-page judgment in PDF, click here.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu embraces President Joe Biden during the latter’s trip to Israel on Oct. 18.
Benjamin Netanyahu was like a car with the brakes set—but with the pedal to the metal and the engine racing at 90 miles an hour.
He was in a chair in an office holding a sensible, civil conversation. He didn’t pace or raise his voice or become emotional.
But there was no doubting his intensity, his concentration, and his complete focus on what he was saying and thinking. I could see his mind was fully engaged, reflected in the uninterrupted, unaccented flow of his words. His gaze unwaveringly bore into my eyes as though he was trying to look through them and read something written on the back of my skull.
It was 1980 and I was sitting with the 31-year old Netanyahu in the offices of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the premier pro-Israel lobby in Washington, DC.
I was there to interview Netanyahu about a book he had compiled from his brother’s letters. At the time I was associate editor of The Baltimore Jewish Times. We discussed his brother, what he stood for, the background of the book and the challenge terrorism presented to Israel and the West.
I would encounter Netanyahu again from time to time in the years after that interview. But the whole world would get to know him well as he rose through Israeli politics to become the country’s prime minister six different times. It was hardly a smooth path or a pretty career.
“Bibi” Netanyahu, as he is universally known (and will be referred to in this article), is at the center of world history right now. On his shoulders rest questions of war and peace that reach far beyond Israel. President Joe Biden visited him to both show support and hold substantive talks. Biden has dealt with Bibi before and knows him well.
Tomorrow, Saturday, Shabbat, Oct. 21, is Netanyahu’s 74th birthday. Those 74 years were shaped by a reality and circumstances far from those experienced by Americans, whether in political leadership positions or in the street.
It might be helpful for Americans, whether in Southwest Florida or beyond, to know a few key things about the person leading Israel through one of its most trying moments—and whose decisions will affect America and the world.
Feeling terrorism’s toll
The author’s copy of Self-Portrait of a Hero.
Americans got a taste of the pain and loss inflicted by terrorism on Sept. 11, 2001. It was a big shock, it was hurtful and it was frightening—as terrorism intends to be.
But Netanyahu felt that loss much more directly and keenly long before then.
On June 27, 1976, terrorists of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine hijacked an Air France flight and flew it to Entebbe, Uganda where they held 106 passengers and crew, intending to exchange them for prisoners held by Israel. They were aided in this by Ugandan dictator Idi Amin. On July 4, 1976, Israel flew commandos to Entebbe, tricked the Ugandan guards, killed all the terrorists and rescued the hostages.
Only one Israeli soldier was killed in action: the commander of the assault team, Col. Jonathan (Yonaton, in Hebrew) Netanyahu, Benjamin’s older brother.
Afterwards, Benjamin collected his brother’s letters and compiled them in a book titled Self-Portrait of a Hero, published in 1977.
It was this book that prompted me to head down to Washington and interview Netanyahu, at the suggestion of AIPAC’s director of information and research, Leonard “Lenny” Davis.
Our interview covered the facts of his brother’s death, the book and the importance of Jonathan’s memory and work. Benjamin made a particular point of emphasizing Jonathon’s fight against terrorism and the need for the world to be part of that fight.
But Bibi didn’t just honor his brother’s memory with a book. In 1978 he founded the Yonatan Netanyahu Anti-Terror Institute (later shortened to The Jonathan Institute) to study terrorism and promote a response to it. He evangelized the need to confront and defeat terrorism and understand its implications and he especially made the point that Israel’s fight against terrorism also represented the West’s fight for its democratic values and freedom.
Bibi headed the Institute from 1978 to 1980 but remained active on the anti-terrorism front, editing two books, International Terrorism: Challenge and Response and Terrorism: How the West Can Win and organizing two conferences, one in Jerusalem and one in Washington, DC in 1984.
I had the good fortune to cover the second conference when Bibi spoke, bringing his characteristic intensity to the topic. In the audience were high-level politicians, intellectuals and officials in the administration of President Ronald Reagan. They didn’t really need any urging to oppose terrorism and the extreme anti-Western movements of the Middle East. But the conference laid an intellectual framework for the counter-terrorism movement and the seeds Bibi planted would bear a second fruit in the American response after 9/11 in the administration of President George W. Bush.
The man now determined to destroy Hamas knows terrorism and terrorists and their movements very well. It’s not something that swam suddenly into focus from the periphery of his vision—for over 40 years it has been at the core of his being and consciousness. When it comes to terrorism and its antidote, he knows whereof he speaks and he is absolutely committed to the cause of defeating it.
Knowing combat
Netanyahu during his special operations service.
Bibi knows what Israeli ground forces will be facing when they enter the rubble, the alleys and the streets of Gaza. He’s a combat veteran and, as Israelis say, has looked the Angel of Death in the face many times.
His brother Jonathan served in the Sayeret Matkal, the Israeli general staff’s reconnaissance unit and the most elite of Israel’s special operations commando units. It was Sayeret Matkal that conducted the Entebbe raid.
Benjamin followed in his brother’s footsteps, also joining the unit and reportedly being involved in numerous operations on Israel’s borders and beyond, including the assault on a hijacked Sabena airliner, during which he was wounded in the shoulder.
“He was incredibly motivated, really in an extraordinary way,” Doron Salzberg, a former fellow commando recalled of Netanyahu to The Times of Israel in a 2012 article, “Saving Sergeant Netanyahu.”
“He was very strong, too, wouldn’t ever let anyone switch him when carrying the stretcher,” Salzberg added. Another teammate recalled him being “a bit of a nerd,” very straight-laced and uncompromising.
On his first operation in December 1969 Netanyahu nearly drowned in the Suez Canal when his unit was ambushed by Egyptian soldiers while crossing the waterway at night in assault rafts.
When the Egyptians opened fire, the commandos in Bibi’s boat retreated to the raft’s stern. The weight made the boat pitch upward, dumping them into the water. Bibi was loaded with ammunition and a heavy machine gun. He had a life jacket but it didn’t fully inflate.
Another commando, still in the boat, could only see the ripple where Bibi had gone under. He reached into the water, felt Bibi’s hair and pulled him to the surface, ultimately getting him back to shore. Once there the commandos were still under fire and Bibi was blown into the air by a nearby blast from a rocket-propelled grenade. But he made it out alive.
He went on to fight in Lebanon and participated in numerous operations. He was discharged in 1972 but went back on active duty during the Yom Kippur War of 1973, participating in a still-classified raid deep in Syria.
He knows combat and its hazards in a way virtually no other American politician shares.
His paternal grandfather, Nathan Mileikowsky, was a rabbi, Zionist activist and writer in what is now Poland. Bibi’s father, Benzion (“son of Zion”) immigrated to Palestine with his family at the age of 10 and hebraicized his name to Netanyahu, which means “gift from God.”
Benzion was a scholar of the Spanish Inquisition’s persecution of the Jews, arguing both that the Inquisition was not unique to Spain and was the origin of all modern anti-Semitism, a very controversial premise in historical circles. His academic career took him to numerous schools, some in the United States.
Bibi was born in Tel Aviv a year after Israeli independence and received his primary schooling in Jerusalem. He traveled to the United States with his family when his father took a position at Dropsie College in Pennsylvania and he attended high school in Cheltenham Township, a suburb of Philadelphia.
In 1967 he returned to Israel to enlist in the IDF, trained, and served in Sayeret Matkal but after his service was over, he came back to the United States in 1972. He enrolled in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for a bachelor degree in architecture. Following that he pursued a master’s degree from MIT’s Sloan School of Management while also taking political science courses at Harvard University, where he completed a separate master’s degree in two and a half years. That degree would normally take four. He graduated near the top of his class at Sloan.
“He made it clear that he didn’t have four years to get an undergraduate degree,” Leon Groisser, his professor at the Architecture Department recalled in a 1996 interview. “He didn’t say it with bravado. He said it as fact. He proceeded to overload and he did very well.”
The professor continued: “”He did superbly. He was very bright. Organized. Strong. Powerful. He knew what he wanted to do and how to get it done.”
His academic achievements were even more remarkable given that his studies were interrupted by the Yom Kippur War, when he returned to active service in Israel.
Jonathan’s death in 1976 ended Bibi’s academic career. He briefly worked as a management consultant at the Boston Consulting Group, where he formed a friendship with another up and coming young consultant named Mitt Romney.
Stiff-necked politics
The Bible frequently refers to the Jews as a stubborn, “stiff-necked” people. Of those people Bibi is the most stiff-necked—and that’s really saying something.
I can remember Lenny Davis coming back to the offices of AIPAC from an evening’s discussion with Bibi, shaking his head. “I just wish he wasn’t so stubborn,” he’d say. At that point, Bibi was serving as the deputy chief of mission, the number two position at the Israeli embassy in Washington. (At that point too, I was working as assistant editor of Near East Report, the newsletter of AIPAC, which I joined in 1981.)
Bibi is an infuriating negotiator, according to all accounts, both personal and public. On top of what Henry Kissinger once referred to as the Israeli “Talmudic” style of negotiating, full of arcana and arguments, Bibi will remain incredibly fixed on the risks inherent in any deal to the exclusion of its possible benefits especially when some kind of leap of faith or trust is required. Put another way, he can read deeply into the downsides but only perceives upsides with difficulty. He can be budged but it’s almost superhumanly difficult.
Then, when negotiations seem to be wrapped up and a deal done, he’ll always come in with one more issue or demand, sometimes completely unrelated to the matter at hand that throws all progress into confusion.
Partially that’s just Bibi. But it’s also the result of the Israeli experience. Israeli politics is a sharp-elbowed, bruising battle in a league of its own. It plays out in an unforgiving and relentlessly pressured environment that makes American politics seem like an afternoon tea party.
And that’s just domestic politics—Israel is in a region full of murderous enemies who have repeatedly tried to destroy the state. In America if leaders make a decision and it doesn’t work out, they can try a “Plan B.” In Israel there’s no “Plan Bet.” There’s always the looming possibility that a bad decision won’t just be wrong, it will be fatal—for the politician, the country and the Jewish people.
As Biden recounted it during his speech on Oct. 10, in a 1973 meeting he had with then-Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. Biden said she told him: “’We have a secret weapon here in Israel’ — my word this is what she said — ‘We have no place else to go. We have no place else to go.’”
Those kinds of pressures make for a thick-hided, extremely determined, unforgiving and, yes, stiff-necked people. It has certainly reinforced Bibi’s sometimes seemingly intransigent and often unfruitful stubbornness.
But if Bibi sometimes can’t bring himself to make a leap of faith to seize an opportunity and he is eternally seeing the worst possibilities in any course of action, he also has some history on his side.
Some of this goes back to foundations of Likud, the political party he heads. In the 1930s its founder, writer and activist Zeev Jabotinsky, could see clearly where Nazism was headed and what it ultimately intended. He tried to warn other Jewish leaders and was dismissed as a kook and alarmist—but he was proven right.
Like Jabotinsky—and Winston Churchill, for that matter—who were both dismissed when they warned of the extreme dangers of their time, Bibi has warned of Hamas as a threat to Israel since its founding in 1987. In 1997 he approved a Mossad operation to assassinate a Hamas leader in Jordan, which failed. He opposed Israel’s withdrawal from occupation of the Gaza Strip in 2005. He opposed repeated cease-fires after clashes with Hamas and warned repeatedly that Hamas was using the truces to re-arm. If he sees an intractable, determined enemy in Hamas and other regional actors, it’s because they are indeed intractable, determined enemies bent on the destruction of Israel and Jewish extermination.
That is not to say that Bibi can’t bow to greater forces—after all, he’s had to relinquish the premiership five times in the face of Israeli elections—or that he cannot strike a deal. Not only has he formed ruling Israeli coalitions, he dealt directly with Palestine Liberation Organization chief Yasir Arafat, reaching an accommodation in 1996 and he signed the Hebron Protocol in 1997 with the Palestine Authority. In fact, he was attacked by the Israeli right for being too accommodating.
Then, though, Bibi wasn’t responding to an attack that slaughtered Israeli civilians and butchered Israeli babies. If Bibi and the Israelis seem deadly and relentless now, it’s because Hamas was deadly and relentless first.
Divisiveness
Bibi’s implacability in pursuing his goals and visions for Israel has led to extreme controversy and deep divisions in Israeli society.
On the eve of the Hamas attacks Bibi’s coalition of extreme right-wing and ultra-orthodox religious parties had fractured the country, to the point where even reservists were threatening to refuse service in protest. The coalition was seeking to reduce the authority of the country’s Supreme Court, causing concerns that they were trying to turn the country into a dictatorial theocracy with Bibi at its head.
The greatest hatred of Bibi that I ever saw personally came after a trip I made to Israel after the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995.
Rabin was an Israeli hero, a brilliant general who planned the Six Day War and had led Israel through conflict and conciliation. He was promoting the Oslo peace accords at a rally in Tel Aviv on Nov. 4, 1995 when he was shot by an ultranationalist Israeli opposed to the deal.
When he died it was as great a shock to Israelis as the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln or John F. Kennedy were for Americans.
Bibi had led a personally vituperative campaign in opposition to the accords. Rabin was depicted in Nazi SS uniform and in a gun’s crosshairs. Anti-accord crowds chanted that Rabin was a murderer or a traitor and in July Bibi led a mock funeral procession with a coffin and hangman’s noose for Rabin (shades of the attempted lynching of US Vice President Mike Pence on Jan. 6, 2021!). Even when he was asked to moderate his rhetoric by the head of internal security, Bibi refused.
Leah Rabin, Yitzhak’s widow, publicly blamed Bibi for the ferocious atmosphere he whipped up against her husband. In letters she called Bibi a “nightmare” a “monstrosity,” and a “liar.”
During my visit, my host, a security and defense veteran, took me on a tour of the murder site and the route of the ambulance after Rabin was shot, analyzing the emergency and security failures that caused his death. I’ll never forget his bitterness and fury toward Bibi and his allies.
Right now Bibi and Israel are consumed by the needs and uncertainty of waging war and by the grief and anger caused by the attack. But when that moment passes—and it will—the questions about how it all happened and how the government, intelligence services and the army failed will rise to the top of the public agenda. The result will be ferocious and Bibi will be at the center of the storm once again.
What’s next?
By necessity, this essay barely scratches the surface of Bibi Netanyahu’s career and impact on Israeli politics. Unmentioned here are the investigations and prosecutions for alleged corruption and bribe-taking; the expansion of settlements despite international opposition; his relations with America and American presidents, particularly Donald Trump, and much, much more. After all, a lot happens in a 35-year political career in the public spotlight, especially in the Middle East.
Perhaps it’s most productive at this point to try to deduce what might happen next with Bibi in charge. What can we expect based on past performance?
A cease-fire is unlikely. In the past, Bibi has denounced cease-fires, specifically with Hamas, as when he said of one in 2008, “This is not a relaxation, it’s an Israeli agreement to the rearming of Hamas … What are we getting for this?”
World opinion is a factor but not a deciding one. Israel has always been criticized for any course of action it has taken. This time it will try to accommodate international conventions and respond to criticism but ultimately it will take whatever actions it deems necessary regardless of world reaction.
Israel is ready to make bold military moves. Remember that Bibi is a former commando, accustomed to taking big risks. The country’s military is already renowned for its daring. If Bibi feels that extreme measures are necessary he will authorize them, even very far from Israel’s borders.
Israelis are determined and never more so than now. As it is, Israelis are dogged in pursuit of a course of action once decided. Bibi is perhaps the most dogged and determined Israeli. The horrors of the Hamas attack and the Jewish historical experience inform the response this time and, as Bibi said in his war announcement, “We will exact a price that will be remembered by them and Israel’s enemies for decades to come.”
Bibi doesn’t trust and he will most certainly verify. Goodwill gestures, promises, pledges or any vague solution based on trust will not get very far. Any longer-lasting accommodation between Israel and its opponents will be exhaustively vetted and firmly verified. Bibi’s whole career has been based on skepticism of agreements and he—and other Israeli leaders—have often been proven right in their suspicions.
For Bibi and Israel, survival is at stake and they will act accordingly. For Israel, every military conflict holds within it the possibility of annihilation. In 1948, 1967, and 1973, the prospect of defeat brought the chance of extermination. The Oct. 7 onslaught revealed that Hamas’ rhetoric was serious about its stated intention to destroy Israel and kill Jews. This is an existential conflict—meaning that the losing party will cease to exist.
As Bibi enters his 75th year he is the leader of a country traumatized by the terrorism he has fought all his life. He and his country face immense dangers. He is facing hatred throughout the Middle East and it’s spreading. The anger and criticism he will face at home when the immediate crisis is over will likely end his political career.
Bibi has taken controversial actions all his life. He’s faced physical danger and political pressure that would have likely imploded an American politician. Even if his means and methods and goals have at times been divisive and damaging to himself and his country, his commitment to Israel and Jewish survival have never been questioned.
The current crisis is immense and the stakes are enormous. It will take every bit of the intensity and concentration that I saw in his eyes back in 1980 for him to get through this.
But as Golda Meir told President Biden, the Israelis have no place else to go and that is Israel’s—and Bibi’s—secret weapon.
Commissioner Chris Hall at a Collier County Board of Commissioners meeting in July. (Image: CCBC)
Oct. 20, 2023 by David Silverberg
Collier County Commissioner Chris Hall (R-District 2) today stated “There is no separation of church state,” flatly rejecting the Constitution of the United States and calling into question his ability to impartially govern the Florida county.
The statement came at the end of an otherwise unremarkable “Coffee with Chris Hall” event for constituents at the Collier County Public Library Headquarters in North Naples.
The 75 or so people in the audience heard presentations by George Yilmaz, director of Public Utilities, Kari Ann Hodgson, Solid Waste director, Michael Bosi, director of Planning and Zoning, and Trinity Scott, Transportation Management Services director. All discussed the functions of their offices and plans for the future.
Following the presentations, Hall took the floor. He said that he had run for his position in order “to do what’s right.”
“I’m frequently asked how I know what’s right,” he said. “There is no separation of church and state. The Bible tells me what is right.”
He went on to argue that an 1802 letter by President Thomas Jefferson, in which he expressed “sovereign reverence” for the separation, was actually intended to protect religion from government. (The full letter is at the end of this article.)
This argument is increasingly being used by religious conservatives to overturn the “wall of separation” between the private practice of religion and secular governance. In Collier County it has also been cited by public school board member Jerry Rutherford (District 1) to justify his efforts to inject religion into county public schools.
A hint of Hall’s promotion of religion came at the outset of the meeting when he apologized for not having a prayer and a pledge of allegiance at a previous meeting. At this meeting the pledge was made and an invocation was recited by an audience member who concluded the prayer, “in Jesus’ name.”
___________________
The Jefferson Letter
On Jan. 1, 1802, President Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to members of the Danbury Baptist association in Danbury, Conn. It used the phrase “a wall of separation between Church & State,” which has widely been interpreted ever since as confirming the completely separate functions of religion and government in the United States. The full text, as provided by the US Library of Congress, is below:
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
The White House illuminated in the blue and white colors of Israel on Oct. 9, 2023. (Photo: (White House/Adam Schultz)
Oct. 13, 2023 by David Silverberg
For many people, these confusing days may seem like the end of the world. We’ve had war and pestilence. Can famine and death be far behind? Is Armageddon upon us?
It’s distressing to say the least and Southwest Florida isn’t even in the direct line of fire.
In such circumstances, one response makes a great deal of sense.
“My father taught me when I was very young, that if you’re ever in an emergency, become calm. Become the calmest person in the room and if you do you have the best chance of surviving.”
That’s sage advice. It comes from—of all people—Rudy Giuliani. Not the crazed, drunken, conspiratorial, Trump-infected Giuliani with hair dye running down his sweating face but the strong, rational, clear-headed Giuliani of 9/11 when he did his job amidst a devastating terrorist attack and emerged as America’s mayor and Time magazine’s 2001 Man of the Year.
So amidst what seems like mounting chaos, it’s perhaps best to stop for a moment, draw a deep breath, survey the landscape, gather the facts, discern the trends and become the calmest person in the room. Only then can one respond rationally, whether in one’s own life or in the public space.
The article that follows is the author’s attempt to analyze and assess current events from a political standpoint. It evaluates them in the global context, the national context, and the local context. It attempts, as best as one is able based on public sources, to discern and project likely implications and outcomes. It’s hardly complete and it’s necessarily speculative.
Fair warning: It’s also very long, so find a comfortable chair.
The global context
The current global conflict—and it is global, not confined to Ukraine or Israel—is an autocratic, anti-democratic reaction to a tide of democratic aspirations around the world.
That tide—a tsunami, really—can be said to have started with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and peaked with the “Arab Spring” of 2010 to 2012 when people in the Middle East rose up against longstanding dictatorships and overthrew them. Inspired by the example of the United States and fed on the hope and change promised by the presidency of Barack Obama, the wave of democracy seemed unstoppable.
This springtime of democracy was not confined to the Middle East. Democracy budded in the former republics of the Soviet Union and nowhere more so than in Ukraine, whose people longed to join the European Union and look westward rather than to the country’s former overlord, Russia.
The Hamas-Israeli War that started last Saturday, Oct. 7, is not a separate and discrete conflict. It is a new front in this broader contest and that’s the way historians will likely look back on it. It may have started with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s attempt to conquer Ukraine but that is certainly not where it will stay.
Overall, future historians will likely view these events and conflicts as a revolt of outlier countries to overthrow democracy, Western dominance and the rule-based international order that evolved after World War II. That order was essentially a “Pax Americana” enforced by the United States. The chief outliers from that system are Russia, Iran and North Korea along with their associated allies, movements and proxies, like Hamas.
The Middle Eastern context
When it comes to the immediate causes of Hamas’ assault on Israel, much of the media speculation is focusing on the past year of rising tensions between the two parties. Hamas itself cited Israeli police incursions on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which infuriated local Muslims. Additionally, Israel has blockaded Gaza in various forms since 2007 when Hamas took over the territory.
However, global currents clearly affected this action.
It’s a truism of Middle Eastern politics that whenever there’s a trend in a particular direction, some opponent will try to disrupt it through terror or violence. It happens again and again.
Regionally, Israel, with American help, was moving toward increased normalization among its neighbors. It had already achieved normal diplomatic relations with Egypt, Jordan and, further afield, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates. Next, the United States was brokering potential recognition with Saudi Arabia.
Mutual Israeli-Saudi Arabian relations would have been a huge game-changer. It would have been particularly important given Saudi Arabia’s status as home of Mecca and Medina, the two most sacred cities and shrines in the Muslim world. Essentially, it would have constituted official Islamic religious acceptance of Israel throughout the Sunni world. Diplomatically, it would have capped inclusion of Israel throughout the region, and would have likely been followed by further normalizations.
Not only would such a rapprochement be opposed by Muslim religious conservatives, it was likely seen as a direct strategic threat to Iran. Saudi Arabia and Israel share a suspicion of Iranian intentions and nuclear capabilities and have actively opposed them. Among the many measures were assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists between 2007 and 2021. In 2010 a debilitating software virus infected Iranian nuclear equipment. Its development and introduction was attributed to Israeli and allied covert action.
The United States also attempted to thwart Iranian intentions. In 2020 the United States assassinated Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, a high-level Iranian general who was in Baghdad. Iran retaliated with a largely harmless missile strike on an American military base in Iraq. But further revenge is no doubt on Iranian minds.
There is evidence that Iran was very involved in the planning and preparations for the Oct. 7 assault, according to The Wall Street Journal. In contrast, reports are circulating that Iranian leaders were taken by surprise. To find the truth is to enter the hall of mirrors that is intelligence-gathering—which has no clear exit.
As of this writing, the United States is pledging aid to Israel, although the country should have robust capabilities to carry out its operations. But other anti-Israeli elements like Hezbollah in Lebanon are entering the fray and may with time stress Israeli capabilities. Both Israel and the United States would best be served by a short, sharp, victorious fight; however, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned of a long and costly war to come.
No doubt both Hamas and Iran are also hoping that a massive Israeli incursion into Gaza will mobilize the Muslim world against Israel and the United States. This was the strategy pursued by Osama Bin Laden in his 2001 attack on New York. He expected the American response to cause a global Muslim anti-Western jihad, which never materialized.
At the very least, the current attack has certainly disrupted the movement toward Israeli-Saudi normalization and integration of Israel into the region.
The Ukrainian context
The Hamas attack, whether directed by Russia or not, opens a new front in Russia’s war against Ukraine and the West. Among its many implications, it distracts the world from the Ukraine war. More substantively, Putin may be hoping to overextend United States military-industrial capabilities or weaken American support for Ukraine, essentially forcing the United States to choose between supplying allies. (In Ukraine, President Volodomyr Zelensky is vocally standing with Israel and pointing out the threat to democracies everywhere.)
Russian and Iranian leaders are no doubt working to draw more countries into their respective battles.
Other flashpoints around the world include the Baltic countries and Taiwan and the Koreas. China is a great fulcrum in this conflict and its weight on either side will have a major impact on the outcome.
It was the possibility of further exploitation by anti-western powers that President Joe Biden alluded to in his speech on Tuesday, Oct. 10. He pointedly warned the world not to try anything: “Let me say again — to any country, any organization, anyone thinking of taking advantage of this situation — I have one word: Don’t. Don’t. Our hearts may be broken, but our resolve is clear.”
The American context
Support for Israel in the United States has been reflexive, deep and across the board, from the President, to the whole executive branch, to the entire political establishment, both Democratic and Republican.
It’s too soon to get any hard data on American public attitudes toward the war. However, it seems safe to say that the vast majority of Americans are sympathetic to Israel. After all, the Hamas strike is a reminder of America’s own Sept. 11, 2001 attack. Between the longstanding American relationship with Israel and deep memories of the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-81 and the global war on terror that followed 9/11, Americans are not sympathetic to Middle Eastern causes that employ terror to achieve their aims.
In terms of domestic American politics, Hamas has thrown Republicans a lifeline. Discordant and disorganized, with an indicted, discredited front runner for President and a deeply fractured congressional caucus, the Hamas attack is enabling Republicans to unite. No expression of support for Israel has been too extreme, too vehement or too emphatic. Not only does this work in the halls of Congress, it works at home, playing well both to Jewish constituents, evangelical Christians and the public at large. The growing instances of anti-Semitism on the extreme right can now be overshadowed by the threat to Israel and the Republican pro-Israel response.
The war also distracts from Donald Trump, who is both a liability and asset to the Republican Party and from the chaos in Republican congressional ranks as the caucus wrestles with choosing a new Speaker of the House.
President Donald Trump jokes with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Sergei Kislyak, Russian ambassador to the United States, in the Oval Office on May 10, 2017. (Photo: TASS)
Trump’s actions on other fronts have to be considered. During his time in office, Trump diminished and bullied Ukraine, an approach that led to his first impeachment. His behavior and policies during his time in office indicated that he was either an unwitting puppet of Putin or an actual, deliberate Russian agent. His anti-Ukraine approach continues among a significant element of the Republican Party, who seek to cut off funding for Ukraine’s support.
The Hamas war is providing a distraction from these anti-Ukrainian MAGA Republicans. They can now use their support for Israel to mask their willingness to abandon Ukraine’s fight against Russia—precisely as Putin no doubt hoped.
While Republicans can loudly trumpet their support for Israel, for Democrats, the war is more problematic. While the vast majority of Democratic politicians immediately expressed support for Israel, there is a pro-Palestinian faction in the Democratic Party that has drawn the fire of Republicans in the past. In Congress it has been spearheaded by representatives with Muslim constituencies like Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-7-Wash.) and Ilhan Omar (D-5-Minn.).
It needs to be emphasized that these representatives are not necessarily pro-Hamas, which calls for Israel’s destruction. Rather, they favor a two-state solution and criticize Israeli treatment of Palestinians.
However, Hamas has erased all nuances since it aims to destroy Israel, its fighters killed Israelis, took hostages and perpetrated gruesome atrocities. Netanyahu is vowing to destroy Hamas. If the conflict was simmering before, it’s now a stark life or death struggle.
The dilemma for Democrats is going to become more acute as Israeli forces enter Gaza in what will no doubt be a brutal fight that leads to extensive civilian casualties and, at worst, massacres. Democratic Party leaders will have to balance their support for Israel with their concern for humanitarian mercy, and what will likely be a media shift from portraying Israel as the aggrieved victim to Israel as the punishing party.
Adding to the stress and the stakes is the looming 2024 election. As long as Donald Trump is the Republican candidate—and polling shows him continuing to hold a commanding lead among Republican primary voters—Ukraine will be at risk and Israel cannot count on consistent American support either, if he wins.
The local context
Immediately after the attack Florida politicians raced to express whole-hearted support for Israel, the more full-throated the better. This included Southwest Florida Republicans. The war also gave them the opportunity to eclipse far-right use of anti-Semitic stereotypes and tropes.
It was also an opportunity to exploit the situation for political advantage and pursue a variety of vendettas. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) on the campaign trail used the occasion to attack Trump: “Now’s not the time to be doing, like what Donald Trump did, attacking Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, attacking Israel’s defense minister, saying somehow that Hezbollah were very smart,” he said in New Hampshire where he was filing papers for the state’s presidential primary election. “We need to all be on the same page, now’s not the time to air personal grievances about an Israeli Prime Minister. Now’s the time to support their right to defend themselves to the hilt.”
As was the case nationally, local Republicans used the opportunity to blame President Biden for the Hamas attack, using a variety of arguments and allegations.
Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.) attacked Biden for not sending an airplane to pick up stranded Americans in Israel and chanted “Vote him out. Vote him out. Vote him out,” in an X posting. He also reaffirmed his loyalty to Trump in another post: “President TRUMP was the FIRST U.S. President to visit the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, Israel. [Fact check: then-candidate Barack Obama visited the Western Wall in July 2008.] Israel has had no greater ally in the White House than the Trump administration, and his commitment to the Jewish people never wavered. We need TRUMP back in the White House.”
Rep. Greg Steube (R-17-Fla.) also attacked Biden for not getting Americans home faster: “22 American families want to know if it was worth it for Joe Biden and Antony Blinken to ease sanctions enforcement and free up BILLIONS for Iran to finance Hamas and Hezbollah. Make no mistake: Joe Biden and Antony Blinken’s policies have enabled terrorists and left America & our allies in danger. They have betrayed our country.” (The US government has reached an arrangement with US airlines to get Americans out of Israel.)
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-26-Fla.) echoed the general horror: “The reports of Hamas beheading babies is beyond abhorrent but it shows you the true heinous nature of Hamas. I support everything Israel must do to remove the scourge of Hamas from the face of the earth.”
The immediate political question that arises is whether their attacks on Biden and grievances with the federal government will do much to influence the election outcome in November 2024. Without a doubt, local Republicans will keep attacking Biden every way they can.
Between now and then gas prices will likely rise, supply chains will likely be disrupted and inflation may increase. Southwest Florida is not in the heart of the storm but like the Gulf of Mexico itself, the turbulence affects all shores.
And perhaps more important than all those considerations are the biggest issues and the momentous decisions that will really shape the world to come.
Deciding the future
From its very beginning, democracy has been in conflict with autocracy.
In 431 BCE the rise of a powerful, prosperous, democratic Athens challenged an autocratic and militaristic Sparta, which launched what proved to be a 30-year war. For its time it was a world war, with all of Hellenic civilization becoming involved.
Unfortunately, in that conflict Sparta won. But the democratic experiment never ended and the hope never died. People want to be free and control their own destinies. That’s what democracy offers. Again and again, democracies have arisen and been in conflict with other forms of authoritarianism.
What is happening now is no different.
In 1947 an American diplomat, George Kennan, wrote a long analysis of Soviet motivations and likely actions. Initially contained in a State Department cable, it later appeared as an article in the magazine Foreign Affairs as “The Sources of Soviet Conduct” under the byline X.
Given Soviet impulses, wrote Kennan, “it will be clearly seen that the Soviet pressure against the free institutions of the western world is something that can be contained by the adroit and vigilant application of counter-force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and manœuvres of Soviet policy, but which cannot be charmed or talked out of existence. The Russians look forward to a duel of infinite duration, and they see that already they have scored great successes.”
Kennan argued: “It is clear that the United States cannot expect in the foreseeable future to enjoy political intimacy with the Soviet régime. It must continue to regard the Soviet Union as a rival, not a partner, in the political arena. It must continue to expect that Soviet policies will reflect no abstract love of peace and stability, no real faith in the possibility of a permanent happy coexistence of the Socialist and capitalist worlds, but rather a cautious, persistent pressure toward the disruption and weakening of all rival influence and rival power.”
He argued that the United States should pursue “a policy of firm containment, designed to confront the Russians with unalterable counter-force at every point where they show signs of encroaching upon the interests of a peaceful and stable world.”
The Soviet Union is gone now but substitute the word “Russia” for “Soviet Union” and the description is the same. The Russian drive for expansion and domination transcends ideology. It’s partially the result of historical Russian feelings of vulnerability and also an ingrained admiration for domineering, conquering leaders, whether tsars or commissars.
Now, as in Kennan’s time, the United States and the world’s democracies need to contain and—to put it bluntly—roll back and defeat Russian aggression and expansionism for the sake of a “peaceful and stable world.”
But Kennan also realized that victory in the struggle depended on America’s internal strength.
He believed that the Soviet Union and the Communist movement could not endure endless frustration and containment and at some point would have to accommodate itself to the fact that it was defeated and adjust accordingly. It took nearly half a century but he was proven right.
However, he also believed the key to the contest did not really lie abroad.
“Thus the decision will really fall in large measure in this country itself,” he wrote. “The issue of Soviet-American relations is in essence a test of the over-all worth of the United States as a nation among nations. To avoid destruction the United States need only measure up to its own best traditions and prove itself worthy of preservation as a great nation.”
As this is written, America and the democracies of the world are under assault. But how that assault is beaten will depend on how the democratic peoples respond, since their governments rest on the collective will of their peoples.
There is always the possibility that these conflicts descend into a nuclear cataclysm that destroys all life on earth. But one hopes that there’s sufficient rationality among the world’s leadership preventing that from happening.
It may seem like everyday individuals have no say in the outcome of this conflict but that’s not at all true. Those who live in democratic societies have enormous say. The Ukrainians are speaking with their arms and blood. The Israelis are speaking with their mobilization and a unified, multi-party government.
In the United States, when they vote in the 2024 election. Americans will decide whether the United States stays a constitutional democracy or becomes a dictatorship, whether it remains a global superpower or submits to foreign domination, whether democracy will triumph everywhere or autocrats will rule the world. In short: what will be the future?
Those are big decisions to ride on your flimsy paper ballot. But then again, no one ever said democracy was easy.
Rep. Byron Donalds addresses the Conservative Political Action Committee in 2022.
Oct. 11, 2023 by David Silverberg
Even as he expresses support for Israel and denounces President Joe Biden, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.) is using anti-Semitic tropes and the stereotype of Jewish financier George Soros to raise funds while alleging a conspiracy against himself.
His e-mailed appeal issued yesterday, Oct. 10, comes amidst rising fears of anti-Semitism and tightened security at Jewish houses of worship in the United States.
“George Soros has been quietly funding a new generation of far-Left activists on TikTok – a platform that’s beholden to the Chinese Communist Party – to manipulate the 2024 election,” stated the fundraising appeal.
As Donalds put it: “Documents reviewed by the New York Post revealed George Soros is paying an army of Gen-Z TikTokers to indoctrinate young voters with Marxist propaganda that pushes his left-wing causes and praises Joe Biden.”
The fundraiser quotes the article, stating: “The woke foot soldiers regularly go into battle on behalf of abolishing border enforcement, defunding cops, and ending cash bail according to their website.”
Donalds’ fundraising appeal continues: “But Soros’s TikTok influencers don’t just praise Biden and the radical Left. They’re also viciously smearing MAGA patriots at all levels of government – and as a pro-Trump black conservative leading the Biden impeachment inquiry, I’m Public Enemy No. 1.”
Further, “Some far-Left radicals are even calling for MAGA Republicans like me to be thrown out of Congress and banned from holding political office forever!”
Donalds’ use of Soros as a scapegoat is nothing new.
“In far-right circles worldwide, Soros’ philanthropy often is recast as fodder for outsized conspiracy theories, including claims that he masterminds specific global plots or manipulates particular events to further his goals,” according to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a Jewish organization that fights anti-Semitic slurs. “Many of those conspiracy theories employ longstanding antisemitic myths, particularly the notion that rich and powerful Jews work behind the scenes, plotting to control countries and manipulate global events.”
Soros, 92, announced his retirement from philanthropy in June, when his son Alexander assumed control of the Open Society Foundations founded by his father. Those foundations are dedicated to “build vibrant and inclusive democracies whose governments are accountable to their people,” according to their website.
“Even if no antisemitic insinuation is intended, casting a Jewish individual as a puppet master who manipulates national events for malign purposes has the effect of mainstreaming antisemitic tropes and giving support, however unwitting, to bona fide antisemites and extremists who disseminate these ideas knowingly and with malice,” states the ADL.
Ever since Hamas launched its attacks on Israel on Saturday, Oct. 7, Donalds has been vigorously expressing his support for Israel and denouncing President Joe Biden.
“Israel is under attack, Americans are being held hostage by Islamic-Nazi murders, the Middle East is unraveling & JOE BIDEN hosted a BBQ at the White House,” Donalds stated on X on Monday, Oct. 9. The following day he stated: “Thank God for the State of Israel. May God Bless America and our brothers and sisters of the sacred and treasured land of Israel.”
In remarks to the nation yesterday, Oct. 10, President Biden, in addition to making clear his condemnation of terrorist atrocities and support for Israel, announced measures to protect Americans from hate and persecution at home.
“In cities across the United States of America, police departments have stepped up security around centers of Jewish life,” he stated. “And the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are working closely with state and local law enforcement and Jewish community partners to identify and disrupt any domestic threat that could emerge in connection with these horrific attacks.”
He emphasized: “Let’s be real clear: There is no place for hate in America — not against Jews, not against Muslims, not against anybody. We reject — we reject — what we reject is terrorism. We condemn the indiscriminate evil, just as we’ve always done.”
“I encouraged [Donald Trump] to run for Speaker because he could unite the Republican conference in historic ways,” stated Steube yesterday, Oct. 6, on X. “But I have full confidence in President Trump’s pick for our Speaker: [Jim Jordan]. We must unite around Chairman Jordan who has led the charge in [investigating weaponization of the federal government] and the [House Judiciary Committee]’s critical work to protect our freedoms. Jim is a great patriot who can get the job done! He holds the respect of so many in our conference and I trust him to lead!
“No one is better prepared to lead the House from the minute they are elected than [Steve Scalise]” Diaz-Balart declared on X on October 5.
Shortly after midnight on Friday, Oct. 6, Trump issued a post on his Truth Social network endorsing Jordan, reciting Jordan’s background and accomplishments and concluding (capitalization as posted): “He will be a GREAT Speaker of the House & has my Complete & Total Endorsement!”
DeSantis’ endorsement was more indirect: “…I think you have guys like Chip Roy from Texas who’s excellent, Thomas Massie from Kentucky who’s excellent, Jim Jordan from Ohio” said DeSantis in an interview on South Carolina’s WSPA-TV channel. “These guys are all good guys and I think they would do a good job.”
Whoever is elected Speaker must win a majority of House votes. House Democrats have remained united as a bloc, effectively making them kingmakers amidst Republican infighting and factionalism.
Scalise, Donalds and Southwest Florida
Scalise, currently the House majority leader, has some familiarity with Southwest Florida.
During Donalds’ 2020 primary race for Congress, Scalise was a heavy contributor to Donalds’ primary and general campaigns. The support came from two Scalise-related committees: Scalise for Congress and his Eye of the Tiger Political Action Committee (PAC). In 2020, Scalise for Congress contributed $4,000 to Donalds so he could retire some of his primary election campaign debt and Eye of the Tiger PAC contributed $10,000.
These were particularly important contributions coming as they did during a nine-candidate primary race when Donalds’ success was very uncertain.
Scalise had previously clashed with Donalds’ predecessor, Rep. Francis Rooney when Rooney was proposing a ban on oil drilling off the Gulf coast.
Like the Paradise Coast, Scalise’s Louisiana district is dominated by shoreline and wetlands—but unlike Florida, it is home to an extensive offshore oil exploration and exploitation industry. Indeed, Scalise is such a spokesman for the oil industry that one trade publication was led to ask if he was the “oil industry’s best friend in Congress.”
In 2018 Rooney and Scalise had a memorable exchange when they were on the House floor together and Scalise told Rooney that the oil industry would object to his efforts to keep the eastern Gulf off-limits to exploration. In an address to a private group at the Alamo gun range and store in Naples on May 30, 2018, Rooney related what happened next:
“I was on the House floor with Steve Scalise and I got in his face and I said, ‘You’re telling me that the industry won’t go for protecting the Eastern Gulf in Florida? What industry are you talking about? I’m talking about tourism. I’m talking about why we’re all here, okay? Just because Louisiana is a pit, doesn’t mean we want to become a pit. Okay?’”
In the 116th Congress, neither man got what he wanted: Scalise never opened the eastern Gulf and Rooney never closed it. However, with the help of then-Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-12-Calif.), Rooney was able to get a ban on offshore drilling approved by the entire House, although it never advanced in the Senate.
Donalds’ pivot to Jordan as Speaker represents a rejection of the man who was one of his earliest backers.
However, Donalds has also based his past campaigns and current standing on his relationship with Trump.
Jordan, a founder of the House Freedom Caucus, a closed, invitation-only group of extreme conservative members of Congress, has been in the House since 2007 and has loudly and aggressively fought nearly anyone with whom he came in contact.
As The Washington Post reported in a 2019 article on Jordan: “For years, Jordan led a band of misfit conservatives who grappled not so much with Democrats, but Republicans: helping drive two GOP speakers of the House out of town, killing bills that didn’t pass purity tests, shutting down the government. Jordan became such a despised member of his conference that some of his colleagues began suggesting to party leaders that they redistrict him out of his seat.”
Since 2016 Jordan has been an outspoken and extreme partisan of Trump both when Trump was president and afterwards. Jordan worked to discredit investigations into Russian election interference and did everything he could to prevent the first Trump impeachment inquiry. He was a leading congressional advocate of the big lie that Trump actually won the 2020 election and voted to overturn the election. After the Jan. 6 riot and insurrection he refused to assist the January 6th Committee investigating it and defied its subpoena.
A Jordan speakership promises to be extreme, Trumpist and completely obstructionist.
An alternative was put forward by head of the Democrats, House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-8-NY) in an op-ed in The Washington Post that appeared yesterday, Oct. 6, titled, “A bipartisan coalition is the way forward for the House.”
Democratic and Republican cooperation is essential to accomplishing the nation’s business, Jeffries argued. “In short, the rules of the House should reflect the inescapable reality that Republicans are reliant on Democratic support to do the basic work of governing. A small band of extremists should not be capable of obstructing that cooperation,” he wrote.
“At this point, we simply need Republican partners willing to break with MAGA extremism, reform the highly partisan House rules that were adopted at the beginning of this Congress and join us in finding common ground for the people,” he stated.
A vote on the new Speaker is expected shortly after the House reconvenes next week.
The Paradise Progressive 