Does America Need NATO?

After NATO allies agreed to increase defense spending, Trump changed his tune on the alliance. The NATO allies were concerned that Trump would walk if he wasn’t happy with his deal, but perhaps Trump ultimately stayed because he needs NATO as much as NATO needs him. More at CNBC.

NATO’s formidable conventional and nuclear forces are the most effective way to protect North America and Europe — the heart of the democratic world — from attack. Threats to our collective security have not vanished in the 21st century. Mr. Putin remains a determined adversary preying on Eastern Europe and American elections. NATO is a force multiplier: The United States has allies who will stand by us, while Russia has none.

Like any other institution, NATO is not perfect. Most allies need to spend more on defense. Fortunately, as a trend, allied defense spending is rising. America is right to continue raising this issue, and Trump is certainly not the first President to demand that Europeans shoulder a greater share of the burden. But bringing all the allies onboard when it comes to budgets and strategy takes time, patience and careful diplomacy. It won’t be accomplished by threats and bravado; in fact, such an approach will likely deliver the opposite outcome.

Europe is fully capable of matching — indeed exceeding — Russia in almost every category of latent and actual military power. Given that, perhaps it is time to ask, as Trump is ham-handedly doing, whether Europe and the U.S. might be better served by a different security architecture in Europe that can undertake new security missions without rekindling the Cold War.

Are Pro-Israel Democrats Becoming a Thing of the Past?

The Democratic party is transforming, and the old guard Dems may soon be replaced with younger, more progressive candidates. Does this leftward swing mean that the Dems are swinging away from Israel?

“It seems to me that some criticism of Israel is part of a package among young progressives along with health care for all and jobs for all,” Democratic strategist Brad Bannon told Newsweek. That puts Democrats who are both liberal and pro-Israel in a bind. Whether the result of “intersectionality,” which links Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to other left-wing causes or a willingness to call out its right-wing government, progressive criticism of Israel may make for some hard choices come Election Day.

Because of the hyper-partisanship within the US, which has now infected the debate over Israel, Ross said that Israel needs to reach out to Democrats in an attempt to retrieve their support and make support for the Jewish state part of the American consensus once again. “Israel risks a backlash because the Trump administration has caused such deep alienation among Democrats, so it’s very important that there is outreach by Israel to Democrats on all levels, be it national, state and municipal,” he said. “If you identify with only one party, sooner or later another party might come to power. Historically speaking, Republicans used to be tougher on Israel, so the pendulum swings.”

…the American left has undergone a profound shift in values, from liberal nationalism to radical post-nationalism… Israel’s relations with the American left, then, are a collateral victim of a wider shift in American society. Jewish nationalism, with its inherent affinity to American nationalism, was once the basis of Israel’s relationship with the American people as a whole. But now nationalism is the main cause of the Democrats’ increasingly fraught and antagonistic relationship with the Jewish state, while remaining the foundation of ever increasing levels of Republican affinity and support for Israel.

Is It Wise to Let MKs Visit the Temple Mount?

The Temple Mount in Jerusalem is a site of great significance and great controversy. Israel, the Palestinians, and Jordan all see themselves as rightful stewards of the site. With great caution, Netanyahu has lifted the ban on MKs traveling to the Temple Mount. Is this an invitation for chaos or simply a reassertion of sovereignty?

As with construction in Jerusalem, so also with pilgrimage to the Temple Mount. Once, in the past, Knesset members were able to go up without a problem. A few years ago, Benjamin Netanyahu decided to limit their immigration, and now that he has decided to allow the immigration to a limited extent [.] we are expected to be thrilled by the move and feel that the Temple Mount is back in our hands.

Netanyahu reportedly told Knesset speaker Yuli Edelstein last week that lawmakers can resume visiting the Temple Mount on a regular basis, as long as they don’t do so more than once every three months and coordinate their visits with the police in advance… “Due to the desire to leave the Temple Mount outside of the political realm, it won’t be permitted to give speeches during visits or to provide interviews to the media during the course of the visit, including at the entrance gates, nor will entry or participation in meetings at the Waqf’s Temple Mount offices [be allowed],” a Knesset officer wrote.

The Temple Mount loyalists make no bones of their goal — to lay the cornerstone for the third temple… This week, Netanyahu, perhaps unwittingly, paved their first road into the hearts of a growing number of adherents. The visitation to the Mount by the right-wing leadership, which openly claims the erection of the third temple is on the agenda, helps instill in the public mind an idea once considered absurd, nightmarish and dangerous. And if high-ranking ministers of the right ascend the Mount, their supporters will surely follow.

Will Shaming Drug Companies Get Them to Lower Prices?

Pfizer is postponing an increase in drug prices after being called out by President Trump in a tweet. Is this proof that presidential tweets can get things accomplished? Or are Trump and Pfizer just putting on a show?

Mr. Trump was the first to announce Pfizer’s decision to reverse course, writing in a tweet that “We applaud Pfizer for this decision and hope other companies do the same.” The president’s attacks are the latest instance of Mr. Trump using his bully pulpit to challenge a big U.S. company, including one that has supported his administration.

Trump can threaten all he wants. He figures such posturing looks good to his base. But his ranting simply reveals an inability to accept that delivering on his promise will be much harder than he realized. Why? Very simply, drug pricing is a Byzantine world. For starters, when most people talk about drug prices they are usually referring to list, or wholesale, pricing. But consumers with insurance do not actually pay that price. Instead, their out-of-pocket costs are determined by a series of behind-the-scenes deals between drug makers, health plans, and pharmacy benefit managers, which negotiate insurance coverage.

Given that context, Pfizer’s action looks more like an effort to keep an obstinate but easily gulled president mollified, at least in the short term. That’s especially true since its price increase embarrassed Trump, who only weeks earlier had promised that major drugmakers would shortly be announcing “massive drops in prices.” Pfizer has essentially issued Trump an ultimatum — implement the blueprint by January 1, or we shoot the price rollback and dump it over the side. It shouldn’t escape notice that Pfizer’s deadline probably times the revival of its price increases to after the November midterm elections, allowing Trump to keep claiming credit through the campaign season.

Does California Have a Silicon Valley Problem?

Silicon Valley is associated with the best in American innovation, but it is also the seat of many of America’s woes. Is it time for Silicon Valley to start owning up to its negative effects for California (and the rest of the country)?

Silicon Valley’s rise is well documented, but the backlash against its distinctive culture and unscrupulous corporations hints at an imminent twist in its fate. As historians of technology and industry, we find it helpful to step back from the breathless champions and critics of Silicon Valley and think about the long term. The rise and fall of another American economic powerhouse – Detroit – can help explain how regional reputations change over time.

…the digital wilderness stretches far beyond Facebook, to a much larger tech ecosystem that deserves holistic examination and, potentially, regulation in the days ahead. Take, for instance, the industry’s widespread but largely nontransparent partnerships with data brokers — companies that are in the business of quietly collecting an enormous amount of sensitive personal data and selling it to whoever will pay for it.

California’s “Golden State” moniker seems suitable in the moneyed towns of Silicon Valley, but don’t be fooled. California has the highest poverty rate in the country when accounting for cost of living. We’re the most unequal state when considering health, education, and earnings together… Growth does little for the average Californian if its fruits aren’t shared. San Jose, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Fresno are among the 10 U.S. metropolitan areas with the most income inequality.

Has Sacha Baron Cohen Gone Too Far?

Sarah Palin was not thrilled to discover that she had been made a part of Sacha Baron Cohen’s new Showtime series “Who Is America?” Cohen is known for his over-the-top and outrageous gag interviews as well as for his capacity to get people (to their own eventual chagrin) to voice their darkest thoughts on camera. In today’s politically divisive environment, Cohen’s unique take is sure to be controversial.

I haven’t seen the new Sacha Baron Cohen show yet so I can’t comment on it. I can say only, if he is bringing reprehensible politicians back into our living rooms, I hope it’s really, really, funny. And remember, when a comic dupes a politician, only the politician suffers. When politicians dupe the public, well, you know.

Trump fans should now be terrified. Unlike most of the comics who now flog the president with reactionary material, Cohen has the capacity to be scathing in an original way due to his gonzo approach, which is to turn unaware insiders into comedic weapons. As we learned from Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury, this administration is remarkably loose-lipped and lacking in both discipline and judgment. And if they gave full-access to Wolff — a journalist working on a non-fiction book — imagine what damning insights a satirist might glean, especially if he’s posing as, say, as a far-right zealot. The buzz is building. In the coy and torqued guerrilla marketing, Showtime has adopted Cohen’s sense of irony and called this “the most dangerous show in the history of television.” That’s undoubtedly a stretch. Then again, they know what’s coming.

The comedian Sacha Baron Cohen has been called many things during his years of embarrassing celebrities on camera — and he can now add “evil,” “exploitative” and “truly sick” to the list. Sarah Palin, the former vice-presidential candidate, said on Tuesday in a lengthy Facebook post that she and one of her daughters were “duped” into apparently appearing on the British comedian’s new TV series. “Yup — we were duped. Ya’ got me, Sacha. Feel better now?” Ms. Palin wrote, saying she was a “victim” of the comedian for the Showtime series “Who Is America?,” which debuts on Sunday.

Today’s Hot Issues

Does America Need NATO? Are Pro-Israel Democrats Becoming a Thing of the Past? Is It Wise to Let MKs Visit the Temple Mount? Will Shaming Drug Companies Get Them to Lower Prices? Does California Have a Silicon Valley Problem? Has Sacha Baron Cohen Gone Too Far?