2018-02-01 19:24:53 UTC
The Boston Globe
Arguable - with Jeff Jacoby
Monday, January 29, 2018
Cancel the State of the Union
The president of the United States is scheduled to deliver his State of the
Union message before a joint session of Congress on Tuesday evening. In the
audience will be not only several hundred legislators, but also diplomats,
military officers, Supreme Court justices, and other dignitaries. The three
major broadcast networks are planning to broadcast the event live , as are
CNN, C-SPAN, PBS, Telemundo, and Univision.
But it’s not too late to make a change, and I would like to suggest one:
Cancel the speech.
My plea has nothing to do with the current occupant of the White House, and
everything to do with the grotesque inappropriateness of treating remarks by
an American president — any American president — with more pomp, spectacle,
and genuflection than the British monarch’s Speech from the Throne.
President Trump wishes to make America great again? One way he can do so is
to put an end to the most un-democratic, un-republican debauch in American
Presidents are obliged by the Constitution to periodically “give to the
Congress information of the State of the Union” and to “recommend to their
Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” The
first two presidents, George Washington and John Adams, appeared before
Congress in person, even though there was no constitutional requirement that
they give a speech.
But President No. 3, Thomas Jefferson, abhorred what he called the “pompous
cavalcade” to Capitol Hill, which he found disturbingly royalist and
pretentious. So he let it be known very early in his presidency that his
first annual message to Congress — and “all subsequent ones” — would be in
writing. As I wrote in a column some years ago, the change was widely
“All the pomp and pageantry, which once dishonored our republican
institutions, are buried in the tomb of the Capulets,” wrote one admiring
Pennsylvania congressman. “Instead of an address to both houses of Congress
made by a president who was drawn to the Capitol by six horses, and followed
by the creatures of his nostrils, and gaped at by a wondering multitude, we
had a message delivered by his private secretary, containing every thing
necessary for a great and good man to say.”
Jefferson's innovation became the unvarying norm. For the next 112 years,
every American president — Democrats, Republicans, and Whigs — fulfilled the
constitutional mandate by sending written reports to Congress.
Unfortunately, what was good enough for Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, and
Teddy Roosevelt wasn’t good enough for Woodrow Wilson.
The 28th president, imperious and antirepublican, disdained the separation
of powers enshrined in the Constitution and believed firmly in the supremacy
of the executive. (Kevin D. Williamson once called Wilson, with only mild
exaggeration, “Princeton’s answer to Benito Mussolini .”) By 1913, the
understanding that presidents didn’t intrude on congressional turf had
become a deeply rooted element of the capital’s culture. Wilson’s insistence
on reverting to the pre-Jeffersonian practice was unsettling, as I noted in
“All official Washington was agape last night over the decision of the
president to go back to the long-abandoned custom,” reported The Washington
Post on April 7, 1913. Considering some of Wilson’s other achievements — he
segregated Washington, D.C., opposed female suffrage, approved a law to
sterilize the disabled, screened the racist “Birth of a Nation” in the White
House, championed a federal income tax, and endorsed a ruthless
civil-liberties crackdown — it would be stretch to describe Wilson’s revival
of the in-person State of the Union address as his worst offense. But it’s
on the list.
President Woodrow Wilson, breaking with longstanding tradition, addresses a
joint session of Congress in 1913
The worst thing about the State of the Union extravaganza is how it fuels
the cult of the presidency. It intensifies the delusion — the dangerous,
embarrassing, and anti-American delusion — that the president is our Caesar,
and that even his most mundane, empty, or predictable pronouncements must
command our rapt and worshipful attention. Jefferson thought it was vulgar
and royalist for presidents in the 1790s to sweep into the Capitol and hold
forth before the assembled lawmakers. Imagine how horrified he would be
today, when TV cameras invest the speech with almost religious significance,
as senators and representatives line the aisle in hopes of being greeted by
the conquering president, and then spend much of the evening leaping to
their feet to applaud this or that phrase in his text.
The whole thing is odious. It should make us wince. Presidency-worship may
be normal in Russia, Congo, and North Korea, but why do we accept it here?
Where is our self-respect?
Well, count me out. I haven’t sat through a State of the Union address in at
least a dozen years, and I have no intention of watching this year’s either.
But I’ll make a promise: If the president cancels his appearance and instead
sends his remarks to Congress in writing, I’ll leap to my feet in a standing
Truman’s party turns away from Israel
As an American Zionist, I’ve always thought US support for Israel should
transcend politics. I want the Middle East’s valiant little democracy to be
able to count on the friendship of Americans across the political divide.
There is no shortage of issues on which Democrats battle Republicans, but
when it comes to defending our most loyal and stable ally in one of the
world’s worst neighborhoods, conservatives, liberals, and centrists alike
ought to make common cause.
Sadly, reality doesn’t square with my preferences.
The Pew Research Center last week released a new survey of American
attitudes in the Middle East. The headline was stark: “Republicans and
Democrats Grow Even Further Apart in Views of Israel, Palestinians. ”
Respondents were asked where their sympathies lie in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, and — as has been the case for decades — they expressed support
for Israel by a 3-1 ratio. According to Pew’s summary, “46% of Americans say
they sympathize more with the Israelis [and] 16% say they sympathize more
with the Palestinians. . . . The overall balance of opinion has fluctuated
only modestly since 1978, when 45% said they sympathized more with Israel,
14% with the Palestinians and 42% could not decide.”
So in the aggregate, US support for Israel is as strong as ever.
But below the surface, America's pro-Israel consensus has long since split
along the same left-vs.-right fault line that has so sharply polarized so
many areas of politics and policy. Support for Israel among Republicans and
conservatives has never been so steep; support among Democrats and liberals
Nearly 8 in 10 Republicans (79%) sympathize more with Israel than the
Palestinians, while just 6% sympathize more with the Palestinians; another
7% say they sympathize with both or neither, while 9% say they do not know.
[But] Democrats are divided. . . . Currently, 27% of Democrats say they
sympathize more with Israel, while 25% say they sympathize more with the
Palestinians; another 23% say they sympathize with neither or both sides and
one-quarter (25%) say they don’t know.
Among self-identified liberal Democrats, meanwhile, support for Israel is
even lower: just 19%. Among self-identified conservative Republicans, it’s
even higher: 81%.
The gap between the two parties in their sympathy for Israel is the widest
it has been since pollsters first began asking the question in 1978.
Considering how many other issues there are on which Democrats and
Republicans sharply diverge, the gulf separating them on the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict might not seem so unusual. Except for history.
Support for the Jewish state was once a pillar of Democratic Party
principle. From President Harry Truman, who extended diplomatic recognition
to Israel minutes after the nation proclaimed its independence in 1948, to
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Henry “Scoop” Jackson, and Hubert Humphrey,
Democrats used to be among Israel’s proudest defenders.
As foreign-affairs analyst Joshua Muravchik wrote in his 2014 book, Making
David into Goliath: How the World Turned Against Israel , during the period
leading up to the Six-Day War in 1967, “Israel was above all a cause
championed by liberals.” So passionate was this embrace that even ardent
Democratic opponents of the Vietnam War like John Kenneth Galbraith and
Senator Eugene McCarthy voiced support for US military action on Israel's
That Democratic Party is now barely more than a memory. Caroline Glick wrote
in The Jerusalem Post last week that support for the world’s only Jewish
state is no longer tenable in a party dominated by a “progressive” that
regards Israel as an imperialist villain. An excerpt:
Today Democratic presidential hopefuls like New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker have discarded their previous support for
Israel to satisfy their party’s increasingly radical, anti-Israel base.
The Democrats’ move to the Left has caused them to ascribe increasingly to
identity politics as the basis for policy-making. Identity politics dictate
a pecking order of victims. The greater a group’s status as victim, the more
the Democrats support it. In this taxonomy, Israel has been determined to be
an oppressor, and the Palestinians are defined as the victims.
The problem with identity politics, at least insofar as Israel is concerned,
is that there is no basis in fact for the determination that Israel is the
bad guy and the Palestinians are the good guys. To the contrary: As the
steep rise in Republican support over the past 17 years demonstrates, the
more you know, the greater the likelihood that you will support Israel.
During the fall of 2015, as candidates were streaming into New Hampshire to
campaign for the primary that would launch the 2016 presidential campaign, I
had a conversation with a political advisor to Jeb Bush. We were talking
about the issues that seemed especially salient to voters, and I was struck
by an observation he made: “There is nothing more certain to win
enthusiastic applause from a Republican audience,” he told me, “than for a
candidate to pledge rock-solid support for Israel.” Pro-Israel sentiment had
become virtually unanimous in GOP circles, he said. The latest Pew data bear
But on the other side of the political spectrum, the longstanding affection
for the Middle East’s doughty Jewish democracy has shriveled away. At the
2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, left-wing delegates
hoisted the Palestinian flag to cheers during the vote on the party’s
To be sure, most Democrats have not gone so far as to embrace Israel’s
enemies. But great numbers of them no longer embrace Israel, either. America
may still be the most pro-Israel country on earth. But the bulwark of that
support is on the right. If Harry Truman could see his party today, he
wouldn’t recognize it.
Demand cobalt independence!
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Congo is poised to double
the taxes it levies on cobalt, a metal essential to the manufacture of
batteries used in cell phones and electric cars.
The Central Africa country holds as much as two-thirds of the world’s
cobalt, putting it at the center of a growing piece of the global economy.
The price of cobalt has doubled since the beginning of 2017 as mining,
technology, and auto companies rush to secure supplies of a metal that is a
crucial ingredient in the lithium-ion battery.
Surely this puts America in an intolerable situation. Surely politicians and
activists should be in an uproar. How can the United States allow itself to
remain hooked on a commodity like cobalt when the primary supplier is a
country as backward and unreliable as Congo? As a matter of national
security, shouldn’t Americans embark on a crash program to achieve “cobalt
independence” — either by a massive effort to exploit cobalt deposits on US
territory, or by rapidly developing a replacement for lithium-ion batteries?
With cell phones so indispensable to modern economic life, isn’t it
foolhardy to keep putting our faith in the global cobalt market?
I admit that I know nothing about cobalt mining. But for as long as I can
remember, conventional wisdom has insisted that America must break its
“addiction” to oil and free itself from reliance on petroleum imports. Why
Republican and Democratic presidents have for decades vowed to wean the US
economy from foreign oil. In 1974, Richard Nixon declared energy
independence to be a “national goal” — by 1980, he swore, “the United States
will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need.” A few
years later, Gerald Ford proclaimed a similar objective. Then Jimmy Carter
did. Then Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. Last year,
President Trump jumped on the bandwagon. He issued an executive order that
called for “promoting energy independence” by removing restrictions on the
extraction of “domestically produced energy resources,” including oil and
Needless to say, the United States has neither weaned itself off petroleum
nor become “energy independent.” According to the Energy Information
Administration, the United States in 2016 imported approximately 10.1
million barrels of petroleum per day from about 70 countries. About
one-fourth of the oil consumed by the United States came from abroad. Even
now, when America has become the world’s No. 1 producer of petroleum and
natural gas, we still haven’t come close to achieving energy independence.
Nor will we ever.
In a world of globalization and ceaseless trade flows, it is absurd to
imagine that the world’s largest economy can break its “addiction” to
imports of any important commodity. Even as the United States is becoming
the planet’s foremost producer of fossil fuels, it remains dependent on
other energy producers, too — and they remain dependent on us. The same is
true of food: Americans grow crops and raise livestock in such abundance
that we are the world’s leading food source. But we import vast amounts of
Just as “energy independence” and “food independence” are chimeras, so too
is “computer independence.” And “automobile independence.” And “clothing
independence.” And “lumber independence.”
And, to return to where I started, “cobalt independence.”
For better or for worse, Americans will always need to acquire goods and
services from producers beyond our borders. Economic autarky is delusional
and dangerous, a prescription not for strength and security but for poverty
and isolation (see North Korea). On the whole, the human race today is
wealthier, healthier, better fed, better educated, and more peaceful than it
has ever been. It didn’t get that way through the frantic pursuit of
economic independence, but through networks of inter dependence. Societies
rely on each other for everything from microchips and fresh flowers to
aircraft and books. That reliance makes us richer and more secure, in ways
that relying on ourselves alone never can.
Site to See
Amid the internet’s vast ocean of tripe and twaddle, some websites are
extraordinary islands of useful, organized, interesting, and, above all,
focused information. I don’t know how the people who create these sites find
the time and dedication to assemble and maintain them, but I’m tremendously
grateful that they do. Starting today, I’ll share such a website each week
in “Site to See,” with the goal of alerting more readers to one of those
online havens of knowledge that show off the internet at its best.
This week’s site is Dr. Mardy's Dictionary of Metaphorical Quotations (URL:
http://www.drmardy.com/dmdmq/ ). It’s a digital database of metaphorical
quotations — some 30,000 metaphors, similes, and analogies, sorted into more
than 1,200 categories. Here is just one of those 30,000, a remark by Mitch
Kapor, the founder of Lotus: “Getting information off the internet is like
taking a drink from a fire hydrant” (2001).
Want to recommend a Site to See? Send a note to ***@globe.com, and
put “Site to See” in the subject line.
My Sunday column was about the ongoing controversy at the Berkshire Museum
in Pittsfield, Mass. The 115-year-old institution, faced with financial
crisis, announced a plan last summer to sell 40 pieces of art from its
collection of more than 40,000 items, using the proceeds to put the museum
on a stable financial footing, renovate its building, and improve its
exhibit spaces. The plan set off a great kerfuffle, enraging critics who
consider it a hanging offense for a museum ever to “monetize” its holdings.
Not me — I’m with those who regard it as prudent and reasonable to sell a
handful of items in order to protect the greatest asset of all: the museum’s
open doors. After months of watching the dispute from afar, I headed to
Pittsfield to see the Berkshire Museum for myself, and wrote about what I
saw in the column.
The last line
“But the boy, Therem’s son, said stammering, ‘Will you tell us how he
died? — Will you tell us about the other worlds out among the stars — the
other kinds of men, the other lives?’ ” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of
Thank you for reading Arguable! If you liked this newsletter, please forward
it to a friend. If a friend sent it to you, you can subscribe for yourself.
Just go here: http://bitly.com/Arguable . (It's free.)
I invite you to follow me on Twitter (@jeff_jacoby) and on Facebook. And I
welcome your feedback — send your reactions, rebuttals, and reproaches to
***@globe.com (or just reply to this newsletter).
Look for a new issue of Arguable in your inbox next Monday. Have a great
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.