Two Questions No One Will Ask

America Dissected, a provocative podcast on the politics of healthcare, discusses how and why our healthcare system is so diseased. The host Abdul El-Sayed outlines five causes for this dysfunction:

1. Healthcare is a business. Multiple industries profit off of people only when they get sick, so patients pay for “healthcare” rather than for the “health” that they actually want.
2. Illusion of choice. With fewer and fewer medical providers, particularly in rural areas, patients are stuck with whatever is available.
3. Upselling. The same people who tell us what is wrong with us sell us on the solution to fix it. This inevitably incentivizes prescribing unneeded and expensive tests.
4. After-the-fact reimbursement. Third-party payer systems leave patients asking insurance companies to pay for healthcare costs after the services have been delivered, which runs the risk of leaving the entire burden of cost to the patient.
5. Cost. Costs are out of control, and instead of finding ways to reduce the cost system, payers and healthcare providers find ways to pass on the costs to patients.

El-Sayed then goes one to compare three potential policy solutions offered by the 2020 Democratic candidates to address our failing healthcare: Public Option, Medicare for All, and Medicare for America. In brief, Medicare for All extends the existing government Medicare system to everyone, the Public Option allows people to buy into either Medicare or a private insurance plan, and Medicare for America does something in between. To be clear, all of these are more progressive than the existing Affordable Care Act, and much, much more progressive than any plan the Republicans are offering. El-Sayed suggests that the Public Option would likely be cheaper than private insurance and might eventually out-compete private plans over time. However, he warns that under the Public Option some people would still be priced out of the market and left without any healthcare at all. Furthermore, doctors and hospitals could choose not to accept the Public Option and only see patients with private insurance.

Medicare for All (MFA), he argues convincingly, is the only way to solve our country’s healthcare woes. MFA is a single payer health plan that would extend healthcare to everyone in the country. Doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies would remain private, while the government becomes our public insurer. The cost of the program would be borne out by some combination of taxes, but if done properly, this system would eliminate copays and deductibles and cover all healthcare expenses. Simply put, MFA would eliminate the problems of healthcare as a business.

Given all of this, why wouldn’t all progressives support Medicare for All? As Senator Warren commented, “I’ve actually never met anyone who likes their health insurance. I've met people who like their doctors. I've met people who like their nurses. I've met people who like their pharmacists. I've met people who like their physical therapists. What they want is access to health care.” Supporters of the far left candidates are not only annoyed at the rest of the electorate for dismissing MFA, but genuinely perplexed by anyone’s hesitation.

Except, well, here’s the thing. Actually two things. Two big things. Two key questions hang over the entire healthcare debate and no Democrat wants to give them voice, at least not directly.

1. Who do people trust, big business or big government?
2. How much are people willing to gamble on getting NOTHING?

For years (and years and years), progressives and conservatives have tackled the first question. Does the solution to our country’s economic woes lie with an uncontrolled free market, a government welfare state, or a corporate welfare state? Conservatives argue that a competitive free market is essential to our democracy. Progressives argue that government support and oversight is necessary to help the poor and control the baser instincts of corporate greed. Oligarchs argue that government should only be used to maintain the power and riches of the already rich and powerful.

MFA requires complete trust in the government. Despite a reliance on government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, despite worrying about corporations incentivizing profit over public good, despite some beautifully outlined villains in the healthcare debate in the form of Big Pharma and Big Insurance Companies, PEOPLE DON’T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT. A recent Gallop poll reported that 60% of surveyed Americans have “not very much” or “no confidence” in the government to handle domestic issues. Compare this to 29% in 1972 and 33% in 1998. Until Democrats face this deep-seated mistrust head on, MFA is a non-starter, no matter how many poor people lack basic healthcare. Republicans will seize on this doubt and suspicion and kill any attempt to socialize medicine.

This leads to the second key question that no one wants to discuss. Given the immense challenges in passing MFA, how much are voters willing to gamble on destroying what they already have? Assume for the moment that candidate X wins the presidential election and decides to push forward an aggressive progressive healthcare plan that will effectively eliminate the insurance industry, lower pharmaceutical profits, and disincentivize hospital upselling. The Healthcare Industrial Complex would rain down on this president with fire and fury the likes of which even Obama didn’t see with the Affordable Care Act. The disinformation scare campaign would be rapid, intense, and brutal, and legislators would scurry for the hills. Once the dust had fallen, the ACA, if it survived at all, would be on life support, gasping for air.

Or perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps our country would fight the entrenched momentum and rally behind a progressive agenda to deliver a healthcare system that would truly cover all Americans. Perhaps a system could be put in place that would salve all the wounds of the Public Option.

The question is, how much are you willing to gamble? Are you willing to bet it ALL on the BEST plan or bet just a LITTLE on a GOOD plan? Do you have a safety net in place but believe there is a better way forward for our country, or are you afraid to give up what little medical coverage you already have? Like any day at the casino, it all comes down to what is in your pocket as well as what is on the table. And a lot of people with plenty in their pocket are asking a lot from people with very little on the table.

Where does that leave us? Is a cautious measured approach better than a radical restructuring? Not necessarily. Our healthcare system is horribly dysfunctional, and nothing but an economic revolution will save it. But until the Democrats are willing to acknowledge the unspoken risks, the gamble just might be too rich for our blood.

Your Candidate Enters a Castle

A couple of months ago, a Gen X friend who is a staunch Bernie Sanders supporter lamented the centrist Democrats who complain about Sanders yelling all the time. “These complainers,” he commented, “are just outing themselves as people who’ve never known a Jew from Brooklyn.” Now as a Jew from the Midwest with family ties to NYC, I questioned his assertion. But the larger point was that to him, Sanders was channeling a righteous anger at the corrupt state of the world. As podcaster Paul Rieckhoff said, “if you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention.” My friend was right.

Another friend, a Baby Boomer, told me that he was supporting Joe Biden. He commented on Biden’s long history in government, his experience working across the aisle, and his affable personality. “Frankly,” he said, “I’m tired of feeling angry all the time. I feel comfortable with Joe.” He was right too.

No matter what rational or intellectual criteria we voters believe we are using to weigh each candidate's strengths and weaknesses, in truth, we apply our own non-intellectual determinants. Perhaps we lean toward the candidate that makes us feel angry or comfortable or hopeful. Perhaps we tilt toward the candidate we see as most radical or most practical. Perhaps we favor a white male septuagenarian or a female woman of color or a gay veteran millennial because we are convinced that particular person is the most “electable.” And since each determinant carries a different weight, it is near impossible to compare and contrast each candidate’s personality, experience, temperament, and policy on any standard scale.

Until now.

The best paradigm for classifying and codifying candidates comes from a model developed nearly half a century ago. I am speaking, of course, of Dungeons and Dragons.

D&D, the grandfather of fantasy roll-playing games, was created by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson 45 years ago and is now a billion dollar industry worldwide. Although D&D gained an unfair reputation as an enterprise glorified by socially awkward nerds overloading on junk food in their parent’s basement (as best illustrated by Stranger Things), in fact, the game is played by millions of people worldwide. In fact, the hottest game of D&D in Los Angeles is hosted by actor Joe Mangiello, a man who himself appears to be the result of a particularly lucky roll of the character dice. (“Your barbarian approaches a castle. In front is a beautiful Columbian actress. What do you do?” “I marry her, you losers, and tell you all to SUCK IT!”).

Just like in a presidential election, D&D characters go on “campaigns.” Each character has experience points, a Class (e.g. Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, Rogue, etc.), an Alignment (Chaotic Good, Neutral Good, Lawful Evil, etc.), and Abilities: Strength (physical power), Dexterity (agility), Constitution (endurance), Intelligence (reasoning and memory), Wisdom (perception and insight), and Charisma (force of personality). The Abilities are determined stochastically, typically by rolling five six-sided dice, removing the highest and lowest roll, and adding the remaining three dice to create a value between three and eighteen.

What a beautiful way to capture a candidate’s strengths, weaknesses, personality quirks, and experience. In fact, I don't know why career advisors haven't switched to D&D attributes instead of Myers-Briggs personality assessments and questionable aptitude tests. Just imagine the conversations at the Department of Workforce Development. "Well, you have high Charisma, Dexterity, and Intelligence, but low Strength. I recommend a career in sales or marketing, or perhaps roguish thievery."

OK, I realize this is all a gross over-simplification, but for now, please just go with it.

In fact, I posit that these abilities could be redefined as “political” abilities, and each ability would comprise three determinants each worth six points. Each determinant stands in for a roll of the six-sided dice. For example:

• Strength is “Political Strength” and comprises 1) political funds raised year to date, 2) name recognition, 3) endorsements, each normalized to a 6-point scale.
• Dexterity comprises 1) political savvy, 2) flexibility, and 3) communication skills.
• Constitution comprises 1) total number of days campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, 2) Honesty, 3) and Invulnerability to political attack.
• Intelligence comprises 1) Formal education, 2) Perceived mental acuity, 3) and debate performance.
• Wisdom comprises 1) empathy, 2) executive experience, 3) and overall breadth of elected experience.
• Charisma comprises 1) motivation/manipulation, 2) eloquence, and 3) likeability.

I ran this experiment with the top five polling candidates: Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris. Scores were calculated based on external polls, published data, and, only when necessary, my own perceptions of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses.

The advantage of this model is that candidate characteristics and personalities can be separated from their policies. In fact, policies are no longer endemic to the character of the candidate but are rather viewed as “spells” and given a maximum strength score of nine, just like in D&D. The strength of a spell is the product of the Degree of Change from the status quo (1= not change, 3 = major change) multiplied by the Level of Detail of the plan (1 = broad strokes, 3 = full details for funding). For example, a radical healthcare plan with a high level of detail on how to fund it might be a Level 9 Medicare For All spell, whereas a moderately funded climate change policy with little detail might simply be a Level 4 Clean Energy Revolution spell.

The results are interesting to say the least. Joe Biden, with his ability scores of S(15), D(14), C(12), I(13), W(15), C(13) leads the field in Strength due to his name recognition and endorsements but lags in Constitution due to the least number of days campaigning. Warren, with scores of S(13), D(14), C(17), I(15), W(8), C(15) leads the pack in Constitution but lags in Wisdom due to a lack of executive and general government experience. Buttigieg leads in Intelligence and shares top spots with Harris on Dexterity. Sanders is an overall balanced candidate; he doesn’t lead on any particular attribute but doesn’t lag in any either.

I investigated the healthcare and climate change plans (spells) as well. Not surprisingly, Warren leads the pack with a powerful Medicare for All spell (9) and six distinct climate change spells. Biden lags with a few relatively weak healthcare and climate change spells.

Now some may question my subjective analyses, and if so, they are welcome to recalculate and effectively “re-roll the dice.” However, the important lesson here is that no matter how strong your character, no matter how potent your spell, in the end, it will be the skillful application of ability, experience, circumstance, and occasionally luck that determines a successful campaign. A good supply of chips and soda couldn’t hurt either.

On Pedantry

In a recent Omnibus podcast, hosts John Roderick and Ken Jennings discussed “pedantry," a slavish devotion to detail. When is it acceptable to correct someone else’s grammar, style, or facts? What does it accomplish? What is the potential damage to reputation and social construct?

The two hosts are both learned men, brains overflowing with “esoterica and wonder,” and yet neither was willing to defend undue displays of knowledge. Jennings said that as a smart kid growing up, he was very sensitive to being labeled a know-it-all. Roderick invoked Judith Martin’s Miss Manners as his guide to social acceptability. In the end, they both agreed that correcting someone in a social setting rarely changed the opinion of the infractor and only created uncomfortable situations. They then proceeded to illustrate how grammatical rules themselves are “arbitrary, made-up, out-of-date, or all three.”

Fine. I accept their premise that English is an evolving language, and as such, its rules are not necessarily set in stone. On the other hand, I respect the keepers of the language who see proper English as more than simply a vehicle for concepts, but rather an entity with its own rules, history, style, and prestige. Yes, English will evolve, but slowly and purposefully, not simply at the whim of practitioners of slang who are too lazy to learn the rules of engagement.

Wow. That sounded sanctimonious, even for me. Yet my point is that all “truths” crumble under too much scrutiny. For example, I have a relative who is quick to complain about the rules of grammar he deems illogical or outdated. This same relative (whose name I will keep secret, partly for privacy, but mostly to create a sense of mystery and literary tension) is quick to correct others when they mispronounce a word, misstate a fact, or misrepresent a concept. “You don’t understand,” he says in the imaginary discussion I am having in my head, “I am preserving facts, not classist rules that are irrelevant to the people actually using the language.” “Yes,” I respond in this imaginary debate, “but wrong is wrong. Who gets to decide which is the wronger wrong?” At this point, the conversation devolves into name calling.

Pedantry is certainly alive and well on the Internet. I would wager the most common word in Facebook comments is, “actually…” Everyone has their own personal unforgivable sin that MUST be called out. Everyone is a purveyor of the truth. But are they?

Take the following hypothetical statement.

"On January 1, 2000, on the first day of the millennium, me and Joan were literally over the moon that are friends brought our favorite cokes (A&W Root Beer and 7 Up) to our party to celebrate Russell Means, our favorite Indian activist."

Now, what did you want to correct first?

1. Was it the improper use of “me and Joan”? [But that’s based on classist old-fashioned rules that do not affect ambiguity of meaning]
2. Was it the improper description of the millennium as the year 2000 instead of 2001? [But that’s what everyone commonly called the year that all the digits changed over.]
3. Was it the improper use of "literally," instead of "figuratively?" [But many people now use "literally" in a non-literal context.]
4. Was it the colloquial use of “coke” as generic soft drink, even though “Coke” is a trademarked name and does not own A&W or 7 Up? [But that’s just a regional way of saying soft drink.]
5. Was it the use of “Indian” instead of “Native American” to describe Russell Means? [But Indian is still commonly used to describe Native Americans, even in official government documents.]

Which was the worst offender? What was the “wrongest wrong”? Who gets to decide? Pedantry is definitely a minefield, not just in how we correct, but in what we correct.

And yet, some statements do call out for public response and correction, particularly when they are expressed by those seeking unabashed self-promotion, spreading dangerous myths, or simply trolling. For example, take the following hypothetical statement:

“You know, it’s amazing that Barack Obama played more golf than any other president, considering that he was a foreign-born, Muslim, socialist.”

Even I am screaming at the computer right now, and I wrote the damn sentence.

So, maybe pedantry does have its place and time. Maybe some truths are immutable. Maybe we should all become defenders of veracity. Or perhaps “truth” itself is a malleable social construct, subject to the shifting tides of perception.

Actually…

Wheat and Chaff

Let’s face it. Progressives in the country are in Trump sensory overload. There are too many lies, too many offensive statements, too many destructive policies, too many incompetent appointees, that progressives end up re-Tweeting the latest offensive statement and miss the consequential story.

The latest Trump quote about Jewish people who vote for Democrats showing, “either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty,” is a prime example. Yes, it is horribly offensive. Yes, it is divisive. Yes, it is controversial. No, it is not really news. He was offensive yesterday. He’ll be offensive tomorrow. Today just plots to the same trend.

However, the Trump administration move to detain migrant children and parents longer at the border should give everyone real pause, and this should be sparking comments from every Democratic representative and senator, every religious group with progressive ties, everyone who has a conscience. But it barely registers a blip.

Frankly, if we want to separate the wheat from the chaff, the distraction from the content, we need to bucket all the Trump stories into 7 categories, and report them on a daily basis. The categories are:

1. Trump states/restates something offensive
2. Trump lies
3. Trump does something consequential that pleases conservatives
4. Trump does something consequential that (should) anger/annoy everyone
5. Trump appointee does something consequential that pleases conservatives
6. Trump appointee does something consequential that (should) anger/annoy everyone
7. Other Trump news

My test for whether a headline would anger both conservatives and progressives is I substitute "Obama" for "Trump", and predict the public response.

For example, I scanned the headlines from August 20 and 21 in the Washington Post to better understand what our president was up to in the last two days. Use these to better organize and galvanize your anger.

TRUMP STATES/RESTATES SOMETHING OFFENSIVE

• Trump: Jewish people who vote for Democrats are showing ‘great disloyalty’ or ‘lack of knowledge’
• Trump quotes conspiracy theorist claiming Israelis ‘love him like he is the second coming of God’

TRUMP LIES

• Fact-checking President Trump's remarks on the economy
• Trump attacks on Google recycle baseless claims

TRUMP DOES SOMETHING CONSEQUENTIAL THAT PLEASES CONSERVATIVES

• Trump officials move to detain migrant children and parents longer (Trump administration moves to end limits on child detention)
• Trump tells NRA chief that universal background checks are off the table (Trump insists US already has ‘strong’ gun background checks)

TRUMP DOES SOMETHING CONSEQUENTIAL THAT (SHOULD) ANGER/ANNOY EVERYONE

• In Denmark, surprise and fury after Trump cancels visit over Greenland (Danish lawmakers furious at Trump’s cancelled visit, as prime minister voices regret)
• Trump is ramping up his economic double-talk to tamp down recession fears
• Trump acknowledges China policies may mean US economic pain
• Trump again floats E.U. auto tariffs
• Trump renews call for Russia to be readmitted to G-7

TRUMP APPOINTEE DOES SOMETHING CONSEQUENTIAL THAT (SHOULD) ANGER/ANNOY EVERYONE

• After Trump blames mental illness for mass shootings, health agencies ordered to hold all posts on issue

OTHER TRUMP NEWS

• As Trump tries to end ‘endless wars,’ America’s biggest Mideast base is getting bigger
• Trump confirms he’s considering a payroll tax cut amid mounting economic concerns
• Trump and Maduro confirm talks between high-level officials
• Trump looks to discuss defense, energy with Romanian leader
• Trump on Afghanistan: ‘We’re not supposed to be a police force’
• Trump: ‘Kashmir is a very complicated place’ (President Trump on Aug. 20 said he would do his “best” to “mediate” in the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan.)
• Trump considering State Department official (Deputy Secretary of State John J. Sullivan) for Russia post

2020 2nd Democratic Debate - New York Times Ratings

The New York Times analyzed the first and second night Democratic debates by asking columnists and contributors across the political spectrum to rate each debater on a 1-10 scale (10 being highest) and then averaging each candidate's values. I analyzed all of scores using Microsoft Excel to find the standard deviations for each candidate. Since standard deviation provides the average distance of all the values from the mean, a candidate with a high standard deviation represents a high variance in opinion among the commentators. In other words, the higher the standard deviation, the more the pundits disagree with each other. What? How do you all relax?

My wife challenged me to create "a pretty graph that visualizes both mean rating and standard deviation, with a minimum of three colors." She was trolling me about my PhD thesis advisor who always admonished us to make our graphs and charts more visually appealing. This was not always easy to do when you were discussing plant Golgi body morphology, but, I digress.

I took on her challenge. Not as easy as it sounds. Converting hard data to a visually compelling story-telling format is more art than science. My first attempt was shot down both by my wife (not enough colors) and my son (improper use of a line graph to illustrate discrete variables). They were both right, dammit.

So, here is my second (and hopefully final) version.

Just to stuff a little more data into the graph, I color-coded the bars “most progressive,” “mid progressive,” and “least progressive,” based on a recent Business Insider reader poll. Bill de Blasio and Marianne Williamson were not ranked in the poll, so I used my best guess. De Blasio is coded blue since he at least tries to portray himself as the most progressive candidate. Marianne Williamson is rainbow because she is Marianne Williamson. In plotting the standard deviation range instead of simply the mean, my goal was to illustrate the variety of opinion for each candidate. This is the advantage of averaging multiple experts instead of relying on single opinions. I’m sure Nate Silver would agree.

Also note that Williamson had the highest standard deviation, followed by Delaney, which means that the pundits argued the most on how to rate them; they either loved them or hated them. Bill de Blasio, on the other hand, had the lowest standard deviation, which means that the pundits were united in their opinion that he did horribly.

Finally, I fully realize that comparing all the scores together is a clever fiction. Since the candidates did not debate on a single stage, comparing Biden’s score to Warren’s score (for example) is not empirically valid. Nonetheless, the average score is a useful way of illustrating how well each candidate on “the debate stage” in general.

CLICK HERE FOR FULL SIZE

2020 2nd Democratic Debate - Word Cloud

I blame it on my wife.

After the first night of the second round of 2020 Democratic primary debates, she asked me, "I wonder if anyone has done a word cloud for the candidates?" That got me thinking. Which got me doing. Which got me wasting way more time than necessary.

Below is my word cloud analysis of the first night debate. I used WorditOut as my tool of choice, and narrowed the clouds down to words repeated at least five times in the debate transcript.

Please note that word clouds are illustrative only at a high level. These pictures remove all the nuance of the speakers words as well as their speaking style, combativeness, humor, and occasionally dropped zinger. Having said that, most of the clouds are not terribly surprising. Buzzwords, such as "people", "country," "going (e.g. "we are GOING to do this or that), "about (e.g. the problem is ABOUT the one percenters)," and "donaldtrump" come up over and over. However, some of the data took me off guard. I did not expect Mayor Pete's most common word to be "president". And I did not expect Marianne Williamson's cloud to look so, well, normal. I leave further analysis as an exercise for the reader.

CLICK HERE FOR FULL SIZE

A New Book of Esther

There is an old joke about a young Jewish boy who comes home after an exciting day at Yankee Stadium. “Grandpa!” he says, “Today A-Rod hit a home run!” “Tell me,” the single-minded old man asks, “was it good for the Jews?”

Given a recent report by the Anti Defamation League identifying 1,986 anti-Semitic incidents in the US in 2017, given the 182% increase in anti-Semitic incidents across the country after white supremacists in Charlottesville chanted “Jews will not replace us”, and given the horrific shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh last October, many might see the world today as a new Book of Esther, complete with new Hamans and new genocidal edicts.

Of course, such comparisons are misguided and simplistic. First, the politics of anti-Semitism today are much more complex than the politics back in ancient Persia. Second, the actors of modern politics don’t conform to clear archetypes or narratives.

Take Representative Ilhan Omar, for example. Is she a Haman or a Vashti? Or possibly, in her own way, an Esther? What about President Trump? Is he King Ahasuerus or Haman? Or perhaps one of the eunuchs? It’s all jumbled up, and last month’s political shenanigans didn’t help.

First was Rep. Omar, whose antipathy toward Israel and support of BDS culminated in her comment in February that support for Israel among members of Congress was “all about the Benjamins.” She did apologize for her remarks, but she dug herself in deeper when she questioned the pro-Israeli lobby in American politics, saying, “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country” and then compared the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to the NRA, the fossil fuel industry, and big pharma. More than anything, I was disappointed in Rep. Omar, partly because she pulled attention away from her own progressive economic agenda, but mostly because as a Somali-born Muslim-American, she has undoubtedly had to unfairly prove her allegiance to this country many times over. To suggest that Jews have dual allegiance to the US is beneath her.

The response to Omar’s comments was swift and severe. Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared her support for Israel, her support for legitimate criticism of Israel, and her condemnation of Omar’s “use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel's supporters.” Two Jewish House Democrats, Josh Gottheimer and Elaine Luria, circulated a letter, which was signed by 25 House Reps condemning anti-Semitism from “certain members within our Caucus."

Although the letter did not name Omar specifically, the implication was clear, and Sens. Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren immediately came to Omar’s defense, warning that targeting Omar was stifling debate. House Democrats drafted a resolution to decry anti-Semitism which was proposed, pulled, reworked, and finally passed as a resolution against, “anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, and other forms of bigotry.” It was beautifully written and, in my opinion, totally unnecessary.

In the end, Jews were made to look like both victims and aggressors, Muslims were made to look like both aggressors and victims, and House Dems were made to look like idiots. No, Grandpa, it wasn’t good for the Jews. Worst, all it did was distract from an honest discussion of the role of Israel in American politics and the hypocrisy of the BDS movement.

According to its Website, the BDS movement calls for “boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel until it complies with International Law and Universal Principles of Human Rights.” The movement targets civilian and corporate as well as political Israeli institutions. Its stated goals are to 1) end occupation and colonization of all Arab lands, 2) recognize the fundamental rights of Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and 3) allow Palestinians to return to their lands as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

Never mind that “all Arab lands” include countries who lost land after attacking Israel. Never mind that the six Arab league countries back in 1948 voted against UN Resolution 194. Never mind that BDS does not support a two-state solution, simply a removal of Israel. Never mind that Hamas is given a free pass for both firing rockets on Israeli civilians and, as Amnesty International reported, torturing and killing Palestinians during the 2014 conflict.

It is notable that no country with a worse human rights record is called out by the BDS movement, which is why many have complained about the unbalanced, anti-Semitic nature of its vitriol. To put this into context, one need only look at the annual report by Freedom House, a US-based nonpartisan non-governmental organization that researches political freedom and human rights. In 2018, Freedom House rated 210 countries with aggregate scores of their political rights and civil liberties. Finland, Norway, and Sweden tied with top scores of 100. Eritrea, North Korea, South Sudan, Tibet, and Syria came out at the very bottom. Israel rated an aggregate score of 78, which put it in the top 35%, compared to the US (86) which just barely squeaked by in the top 25%. Israel scores higher than all of its Middle Eastern neighbors, and it even comes out better than many of our “friends”, such as Brazil (78), India (77), Peru (73), and Hungary (72). And yet BDS complains about Israel alone.

Some have argued for different standards because of the combined $3.2 billion in US aid Israel receives annually (according to USAID’s 2018 figures). True, but shouldn’t this call to question the $5.7 billion in US aid given to Afghanistan and $3.7 billion given to Iraq? In fact, out of 158 countries each receiving over $1 million total aid from US in 2018, 85% have composite Freedom House scores lower than Israel. In other words, we give a lot of money to a lot of countries a lot worse than Israel.

But all this high-minded rhetoric on balanced criticism and relative culpability is complicated by the fact that Israel has been behaving very badly. Above and beyond the governmental decisions to extend construction into Palestinian territories and perpetuate a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Prime Minister Netanyahu has added even more gasoline to the political dumpster fire. In 2018, he pushed through a largely symbolic “Nation State Bill” that, among other things, justified further Israeli settlement-building and denigrated the position of non-Jews in the county. If there was any doubt about Netanyahu’s intentions, he recently commented, “Israel is not a state of all its citizens. According to the Nation-State Law that we passed, Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish People - and them alone." Netanyahu is no longer ignoring Israel’s brand, he is actively working to undermine it. Once again, Grandpa, this isn’t good for the Jews.

Not surprisingly, President Trump is trying to drive a wedge between the American Jewish community and the Democratic Party. Knowing that 69 percent of Israelis express confidence in Trump (according to the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz), Trump recently told a group of Republican National Committee donors, “the Democrats hate Jewish people.” He went on to say that he didn’t understand how any Jew could vote for a Democrat these days, noting his decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. Whereas such blatant grandstanding is unlikely to take hold in the U.S., it only helps the BDS community equate every decision Trump makes to Israeli politics and by proxy to the Jewish people. Whoever wins this ideological fight, I fear it won’t be good for the Jews.

Frankly, Israel and the American Jewish public need better spokespeople, people like actresses Rotem Sela and Gal Gadot who can challenge the policies of the Israeli government and yet raise up the image of the Israeli people. Sela recently posted on Instagram, “when will someone in this government broadcast to the public that Israel is a country for all its citizens. And every person was born equal. Arabs, too, God help us, are human beings. And so are the Druze. And so are gays, by the way, and lesbians, and…shock…leftists." Gadot also commented on Instagram, “This isn't a matter of right or left. Jew or Arab. Secular or religious. It's a matter of dialogue, of dialogue for peace and equality and of our tolerance of one towards the other."

Imagine that. Beautiful, powerful, intelligent women reframing the conversation and saving the Jewish people. Maybe this is the Book of Esther after all.