Donald Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee for president. Not only is he miles ahead of all of his rivals in the polls -- even in Iowa, which he lost in 2016 -- but he is also leading President Joe Biden in several national and swing-state polls.
That doesn't mean he is guaranteed to win, but it does mean he is "electable." Still, as a Republican and a conservative, I have some lingering questions about Trump and about what a second Trump presidency might mean for our country and for the world.
The first question is whether Trump can put the country ahead of his quest for personal redemption. In the past, he was able to argue that the personal lined up with the political. "My whole life I’ve been greedy. ... But now I want to be greedy for the United States," he said in 2016.
Now he is angry -- and he has every right to be, after the way the 2020 election was handled, and after Democrats abused the justice system, at every level, to punish him and his supporters. But can Trump look past that anger?
He doesn't seem able to -- at least not yet.
In recent days, Trump and his aides have talked about prosecuting journalists and going after the "Biden crime family." Is that really necessary? Cancel the security clearance of the 50 remaining intelligence officials (John Brennan's was already revoked) who signed a fraudulent letter portraying the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation.
But Joe Biden is facing an impeachment inquiry and Hunter Biden is facing indictment. Do we need more?
The second, and related, question is whether he can set personal differences aside for the sake of American foreign policy and national security.
Trump seems to believe -- erroneously -- that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was the first foreign leader to congratulate Biden in 2020 (he was one of the last). He resents Bibi, and he mocked Israel's leaders, including defense minister Yoav Gallant, after the October 7 attack. Trump might have been right, but the timing could not have been more wrong.
Third: this "dictator" business. Trump's critics claim he would be a dictator, and they cite the January 6 riot, erroneously casting it as an attempt to overthrow the Constitution, rather than as an attempt (however misguided) to enforce it. Trump rolled with it, telling Sean Hannity that he would be a "dictator" only on the first day, when he would (legally) sign executive orders to enforce the border and drill for oil.
That's less than the new democratically-elected leader of Argentina, Javier Milei, did on his first day in office, when he (legally) threw out more than half of the government departments. But the embrace of the term "dictator" is odd.
Trump's left-wing critics have little grounds for complaint: from Barack Obama to Tom Friedman of the New York Times, they have admired China's dictatorship, even dreaming of dictatorial powers for a day so they could impose their socialist policies on an unwilling populace. Yet loose talk about authoritarian rule is the last thing this deeply divided, fearful nation needs right now.
Fourth, there is the question of who would work in a second Trump administration.
Trump came into office in 2017 with a small team, after the Republican establishment shunned him. But somehow, bitter opponents found their way into his White House -- many of whom later betrayed him. In other cases, Trump fell out with aides and appointees who had been loyal and effective.
We need to know if there is anyone left, and available, who is both competent and independent-minded -- loyal, but not sycophantic.
Finally, we need to know if Trump is going to get serious about the unfulfilled promises of term one: building the wall; enforcing the immigration laws; reining in the power of Big Tech; and draining the swamp in Washington. Whatever else January 6 was, it was a bad plan, poorly executed. Has Trump learned how to do the hard things? As a lame duck, unable to run for a third term, he will have fewer constraints -- but also less leverage.
These are questions the Trump team needs to learn how to answer, and soon.
This is the portion that all journalists should love: the Torah tells the story of the 12 spies, only two of whom tell the truth when the other ten shade it in a negative away (perhaps to suit a political agenda that is opposed to Moses).
It's not that the ten "lying" spies misconstrue the facts about the Land of Israel; rather, they interject their opinions that the land is impossible to conquer, which strikes unnecessary terror into the hearts of the people.
We have many examples of such fake news today -- from the Iranian propaganda outlets spreading false claims that they are winning the war, to California politicians spreading false horror stories about ICE raids in L.A.
The people realize, too late, that they have been fooled, and once they are condemned to die in the desert, they try to rush into Israel -- only to be defeated by the inhabitants, as the spies predicted that they would be.
But as consolation, God gives the people new commandments -- focused on things they must ...
This week's portion discusses the procedure for lighting the menorah, the holy seven-branched lamp, in the Tabernacle (and later the Temple). It also describes an episode where the people crave meat, and God punishes them by giving it to them in excess. We also read the story of Miriam, Moses's sister, who is punished with the spiritual skin blemish of tzara'at for speaking about her brother, thus violating the prohibition against lashon hara (evil tongue).
I heard a fantastic sermon this week about the lighting of the menorah: that while only the priests were qualified to clean and purify the menorah, anyone could light it. A reminder that each of us can inspire others along the way.
This week we study the vow of the Nazirite; a reminder that sometimes trying to be too holy is excessive, and the best we can do is to be the best that we are.
https://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading_cdo/aid/2495720/p/complete/jewish/Naso-Torah-Reading.htm
