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 week'd portion begins the book of Numbers. Interestingly, the Hebrew name for the book is "In the Desert," not "Numbers." The portion, which happens to be my bar mitzvah portion, focuses almost as much on the names of the princes of each tribe as the number of soldiers it fielded. It also focuses on the configuration of the tribal camps around the central Tabernacle and the Levites.
So why "Numbers" instead of "Names" or "Places"? The numbers are, to be sure, a unique feature of the opening of this Biblical book -- but they are not the focus of the rest of the narrative. The Hebrew focuses on the place where the events in the book take place, because essentially this is the narrative of the Israelites' wanderings from Egypt to Israel, across 40 years. We move from the giving of the Torah and the construction of the Tabernacle in Exodus and Leviticus, to the final valediction of Moses in Deuteronomy -- Bamidbar is the story of wandering that happened in between.
The question of ...
This week's portion begins with the laws of the Sabbath and the Sabbatical year, and the Jubilee year that restores all land to its original (tribal) owners. It also explores laws of property and labor that will apply in the Land of Israel, and the laws of vows and inheritance.
The Israelites are presented -- not for the last time -- with the essential moral choice that they must face, and the rewards for choosing well, along with the consequences for choosing poorly.
We learn that doing good things will earn God's protection from enemies. That does not mean that victims of terror, God forbid, were sinful. But it does mean that we can respond to evil by committing ourselves to a higher path.
This week's portion describes the major sacrifices that are to be offered by the Jewish people, including those that are offered only by the priestly Kohen class, and physical requirements of the people (men) who serve in that role.
Inter alia, there are interesting commandments -- such as an injection to treat animals with respect and care, first, by letting a mother animal nurse her offspring for a week before being offered in any sacrifice; and second, by refraining from slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day.
The commandments regarding animals remind us of the purpose of those regarding human beings: to uphold a divine connection, through ritual.
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/111878/jewish/Rabbi-Isaac-Luria-The-Ari-Hakodosh.htm
