127. "Imaginative," "Tough," and "Realistic" as Compliments to a President

 

Any president of the United States who deserved those compliment-words would be pretty close to our ideal, wouldn't he? But how would he earn them? What would he look like in action? I have presumed to guess, making Jimmy Carter my star.

As my dream scenario opens he is speaking to Menachem Begin, the Israeli prime minister, just after Begin has allowed the first settlements in the Occupied Territories (see my preceding post, #126.). He has just asked the big question, "Tell me, Menachem, do you, in your heart, want all of the Occupied Territories for your people?" Let's say that Begin, by ignoring the question, or changing the subject, or indicating that it's bad form to ask such a question, says No, the answer consistent with his representation to America of Israel's goals.

Now the ideal Carter, having already showed his imagination (in his first question, picturing the future) shows his toughness: "What then is this hammering that I hear?" You may note that the American president, who knows his Bible, is counting on Begin to hear the echo of the prophet Samuel. (After Saul had denied having any captured sheep Samuel had cocked his head and said, "What then is this bleating in mine ears?") Smart Carter is asking, "What are you driving at with those houses going up in Ariel?

Begin has been put seriously on the spot. He has to admit he wants the whole thing or look like the dumbest candidate for Israeli leadership in the Bible. Let's say Begin says, "All right, I want all of old Judea and Samaria." Smart Carter, though he knows, asks him why. Begin tells him what everybody in Israel knows about him and the Gush Emunim, the first settlers: that they want the land because God, in the Bible, gave it to them.

That answer prepares imaginative Carter to ask those of his countrymen who support Prime Minister Begin why they support him. Do they do it because they believe that God gave the Israelis the land?

Now many of Begin's supporters in Carter's country will without hesitation say yes. Anybody who takes the Bible as literal truth will have to say yes — or be embarrassed in front of his fellow believers — and that will end the conversation. But those Jews who don't read the Bible literally, they are the ones tough Carter is interested in. "What? You?" he will say, "Right alongside the people you used to scorn? I remember you in college, so full of brains, so tough on evangelical Christians. How can you keep company with them? How can you not ask of Begin the kind of questions you used to ask us?"

Tough Carter's strategy is clear. Embarrass them. Get them to explain. Out in public. Some of these skeptical Jews are influential people, giving heavy support. Carter's imagination has shown him where the settlements are heading, his realism has told him his nation can't ignore that end, and his toughness now makes him press for an explanation from settlement-supporters no matter how many friends he has to embarrass.

The same will go for the ideally imaginative, tough, realistic presidents that follow Carter. Does an Israeli prime minister continue to expand the settlements (as every one of them will do)? Do his supporters count on his reputation as a liberal, secular, enlightened man to supply — despite a settlement here, a settlement there — implicit reassurance? Ask him what he's doing giving support to the faction he scorned. Does he deny giving that support? "What then is this bleating in mine ears?"

When will our ideal presidents stop? As soon as the explanations produce public discussion and debate in Congress. That's all they'll want. Their goal is not Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories. Things like that are to be determined after debate, after all the other arguments — the need for defensible borders, the need for a bargaining chip, for need for defense against terrorists, and so on — are heard and tested. It would be unrealistic to push for more.

In the meantime realism requires presidents to counter attempts to discourage debate in Congress, attempts that have been so far successful. (It hasn't been just a matter of ignoring the question, or changing the subject; the question simply has not been asked.) Smart Carter's PR staff (or Clinton's or Bush's or Obama's) will, for example, have to keep control of the definition of "tough." It can't just mean "hard on your enemies"; it has to mean "hard on your friends," too." It can't mean "hard on terrorism" or, when you get down to it, anything at all we got used to in the hard-on-soft-on vocabulary of the anti-communism years, the years before Viet Nam. That's pseudo-toughness, poolroom toughness. You show it up by inviting it into the street. "Let's wait until your man mixes it up in Congress. There we'll find out how tough he is."