COMMENTARY: Basic values take a customary back seat to expediency

By Berl Falbaum

As we reach a pivotal point in the history of the country with criminal referrals relating to Donald Trump’s presidency to the Department of Justice, I thought it is high time to ask a very basic question:

When does one abandon values in favor of political and/or economic interests?

Throughout what we might call the Trump Era—2015-22—we have not explored this question or even posed it. I don’t like to use absolutes, but I have never read or heard any journalist ask that question of a political officer holder, candidate or a person on the street supporting the former president. True, writers have discussed the importance of character but the Trump world was never faced with that issue.

I have waited and waited for the following questions to be posed since Trump rode down that golden elevator June 16, 2015 in the Trump Tower in New York to announce his candidacy:

Do you believe a person holding public office or running for one should be a person of character?

Presumably, the answer would be “yes” which would or, at least, should prompt a follow-up: Do you believe that Trump is a man of character?

Not exactly rocket science yet it never happened. True, Trumpites were asked in ad nauseam to react to Trump’s hundreds of vile comments and illegalities, but never the basic one.

Consider Vice President Mike Pence. Not once was he asked how, as a man who prides himself on his Christianity, he justified his partnership with a man of Trump’s character.

I agree that a politician’s religion should remain a private matter and not be subject to public political debate, but Pence has made Christianity a part of his public persona, frequently stating he was “a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican in that order.” Even his recent book is titled, “So Help Me God.”

Putting aside all of Trump’s shady business dealings and lies, how does Pence explain working and defending a man who was accused of assaulting dozens of women and of two rapes, who bragged about grabbing women by their genitalia, who hired a porn star, and who discussed his daughter in sexual terms that sent shivers down the backs of decent people.

These questions could be asked of any Trumpite but they were never raised. In one-on-one conversations, I posed them frequently of Trump supporters. They generally ended the discussion in anger.

This issue came to mind recently when the incoming prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, appeared on “Meet the Press.”

Chuck Todd, the moderator, to his credit, asked Netanyahu, a strong Trump ally, how he justified that partnership given the former president’s trafficking and wallowing in anti-Semitism.

Netanyahu, the longest serving prime minister of Israel, surprisingly, did not dodge the question. Indeed, he told Todd he was really asking how one “balances interests with values. Where do you draw the line?”

He explained that in “real political life” leaders of democratic countries constantly have to consider that balance. He said that President Biden has met with leaders of countries he considered “unsavory” because he was balancing America’s interests. Everyone does that, he advised.

“But for me, the dividing line is very clear. When it comes to questions of our (Israel’s) existence...then existence comes first.”

But he admitted, that “this is not the case here and I don’t maintain it is here. You can draw the line morally here without getting into that bind.”

He went further, implying that at times, compromise on values is necessary to achieve important political and economic goals. In short, the means justify the ends. He also cited Churchill making a pact with Stalin to defeat
Hitler.

Todd followed up, asking whether Trump’s anti-Semitic behavior negated the value of so-called pro-Israel policies such as moving the U.S. embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem.

Netanyahu dodged a bit, responding that if Trump’s behavior continues and is “systemic, which I doubt it will” because “he (Trump) understands it crosses a line.”

Four points need to be made on Netanyahu’s response: (1) Israel’s existence, often cited by Jewish supporters of Trump for their allegiance to the former president, is not an issue here; (2) He understood the seriousness of Trump’s pandering in anti-Semitism; (3) He was disturbed by Trump’s ugly politics; (4) He acknowledged, by implication, that he made some compromises that were troublesome, to say the least.

Moreover, he clearly knows that in partnering with Trump he made a Devil’s Bargain, one not easily defensible. Regrettably, Todd did not ask Netanyahu, who in his new term, will lead the most right-leaning government in Israel’s history, why, if Israel’s existence was not at stake, did he form an alliance with Trump.

Sadly, Trumpites were never faced with a Netanyahu-like interview about “Where do you draw the line?” It would have been interesting to hear the answer.

Which leads us to a final question which needs to be asked of Trumpites: If they could not draw the line with Trump, where and with whom would they draw that line?
————————
Berl Falbaum is a veteran political columnist and author of 12 books.