I agree with the thesis. In the senator's defense, if you asked his primary voters whether they wanted him to do this, I bet 80 percent would say yes, and some of them would even know what the State Department actually does.
A few tweets as a private citizen make her insufficiently supportive of Israel in this one Republicans eyes regardless of any defense she might muster and that’s that for her appointment. Opposing Israeli settlements in the West Bank has actually been the official US position for 50 years, yet here is someone being denied a post for holding that same position. It’s a purely manufactured controversy.
Bizarre. What a circus this has all become. Even if you don’t like her views on human rights or Israel/Palestine.
At what point will sworn loyalty oaths to a particular foreign government become a de facto requirement for holding an official post in the US federal government?
Israel/Palestine is too complex of a situation for most Americans to be able to form useful opinions about. Reflexive and unwavering support is much easier and more natural.
True, but Israel/Palestine was complex back in the 80s and 90’s too in the heady days of Madrid and the Oslo Accords.
However most Americans could still then juggle and comprehend a coexistence of Israeli security concerns with the Palestinian POV on human rights and grievances under the occupation. Supporting the 2SS and hence opposing the settlements WAS the pro-Israel consensus position by both parties.
Now it’s a radical left-wing position—disqualifying for any potential executive branch political appointee to hold.
I'd be curious to compare polling from the Oslo era with now--what percent of Republican primary voters supported 2SS then versus now. My sense is that most of the movement has been on the right--that is, 2SS isn't something that a centrist Democrat even today would view as radical, but an average Republican today would.
There's also a thing going on where Republican elites are skewing closer to what their voters would say they wanted in polls. Hard to tell the dog from the tail there.
State regards any honest and dispassionate advocate for human rights as a liability, a calamity, even.
Rather, "human rights" are a stick which State uses to beat countries that it does not like with, while ignoring far worse violations in countries that it approves of. The link below spells this out in black and white:
There's certainly plenty of evidence for your claim, although I wonder if it's a truism--any government agency is going to tend to do what the elected officials want, such as holding aligned states to a different standard from opposed ones. That is a goodish thing depending on how much independence you want distinct executive departments to have. The other extreme, diplomats appointed for life, would be more like an NGO--they would be calling out their own President for hypocrisy all the time. Obviously, striking the right balance there is something that will not happen in our lifetimes short of an artificial general intelligence XD
I agree with the thesis. In the senator's defense, if you asked his primary voters whether they wanted him to do this, I bet 80 percent would say yes, and some of them would even know what the State Department actually does.
It’s hard not to agree with your point. The Senator probably is taking the easy politically-popular position here.
A few tweets as a private citizen make her insufficiently supportive of Israel in this one Republicans eyes regardless of any defense she might muster and that’s that for her appointment. Opposing Israeli settlements in the West Bank has actually been the official US position for 50 years, yet here is someone being denied a post for holding that same position. It’s a purely manufactured controversy.
Bizarre. What a circus this has all become. Even if you don’t like her views on human rights or Israel/Palestine.
At what point will sworn loyalty oaths to a particular foreign government become a de facto requirement for holding an official post in the US federal government?
Israel/Palestine is too complex of a situation for most Americans to be able to form useful opinions about. Reflexive and unwavering support is much easier and more natural.
True, but Israel/Palestine was complex back in the 80s and 90’s too in the heady days of Madrid and the Oslo Accords.
However most Americans could still then juggle and comprehend a coexistence of Israeli security concerns with the Palestinian POV on human rights and grievances under the occupation. Supporting the 2SS and hence opposing the settlements WAS the pro-Israel consensus position by both parties.
Now it’s a radical left-wing position—disqualifying for any potential executive branch political appointee to hold.
I'd be curious to compare polling from the Oslo era with now--what percent of Republican primary voters supported 2SS then versus now. My sense is that most of the movement has been on the right--that is, 2SS isn't something that a centrist Democrat even today would view as radical, but an average Republican today would.
There's also a thing going on where Republican elites are skewing closer to what their voters would say they wanted in polls. Hard to tell the dog from the tail there.
I dunno; it's complicated!
State regards any honest and dispassionate advocate for human rights as a liability, a calamity, even.
Rather, "human rights" are a stick which State uses to beat countries that it does not like with, while ignoring far worse violations in countries that it approves of. The link below spells this out in black and white:
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/19/tillerson-state-human-rights-304118
There's certainly plenty of evidence for your claim, although I wonder if it's a truism--any government agency is going to tend to do what the elected officials want, such as holding aligned states to a different standard from opposed ones. That is a goodish thing depending on how much independence you want distinct executive departments to have. The other extreme, diplomats appointed for life, would be more like an NGO--they would be calling out their own President for hypocrisy all the time. Obviously, striking the right balance there is something that will not happen in our lifetimes short of an artificial general intelligence XD
Of course our president doesn't have to be a raging hypocrite.