Democrats have taken to calling Trump "Hitler" in the closing days of the campaign. According to the New York Times (see below), some Kamala Harris aides believe it is working, while other believe it could push voters further away.
It is, first of all, a tactic of desperation. Despite the Times' effort to paint the Harris campaign as cautiously optimistic, you don't break out the "Hitler" claim unless you really think you are losing, because it hurts your ability to govern.
How will Harris bring Americans back together after calling her opponent a Nazi, and implying that his supporters are Nazis, too? She can't -- not without significant outreach and compromise, which have never been her strong suits.
It's also such a vile and offensive claim that it will, in fact, alienate some voters. Gone is the "joy" of the early days of the Kamala Harris effort; this is mean, scorched-earth stuff. Trump can be divisive, but "Hitler" goes far, far lower.
But it works for Democrats in one way: it signals to the base that the campaign is still willing to fight -- and not just to win, but to resist a Trump victory. Already, Democrats have hinted they will not let a "dictator" take office.
Accordingly, calling Trump "Hitler" suggests that Democrats will go right back to where they were, 2016-2020: namely, making the country ungovernable if Trump wins. (How can you work with Hitler?) It is a threat, and a credible one.
There is another advantage -- one that would have been impossible without the collusion of the media: namely, that Trump and his allies have to push back against the charge of "Hitler" or "Nazi," thereby keeping it in the news.
The media not only promoted the Democrats' bizarre conspiracy theory linking Madison Square Garden to Nazis, but also took one bad ethnic joke by a comedian there and turned it into "evidence" that Hitler was in the building.
So, in sum, calling Trump "Hitler" is not persuasive, but gives a boost of motivation to the base; gives fearful voters a reason to choose Harris out of simple and understandable fear; and takes back control of the media debate.
If the Harris campaign hopes to repeat Obama's 2012 playbook, and win based on a a sheer "base turnout" strategy, then calling Trump "Hitler" makes sense. But Harris is not Obama, and turning out the party base may not be enough.
Harris has struggled all campaign long to reach out to moderate, independent, and undecided voters. Calling Trump "Hitler" is not exactly the right way to reach them; they have heard everything about Trump. They need to hear more.
They aren't going to hear it from her. But they will hear it from Trump, who has -- rather surprisingly -- built a broad coalition in his closing days. He has also been positive, and disciplined: for once, the big campaign gaffe wasn't his own.
I've often said in this campaign that we now live in a country with two separate media. Each campaign has to talk to its own audience. The "Hitler" debate is largely just Democrats talking to each other, through the Democrat media.
Trump is talking to his own audience -- and a wider audience, through podcasts, conservative news platforms, and rallies in places like Madison Square Garden. They have already tuned out the mainstream media and the "Hitler" absurdity.
Maybe the "Hitler" ploy will pull the polls a little closer. Maybe bad jokes will push a few people toward Harris. But Trump's strategy still feels like the winning one -- at least for this country, at this moment, looking for strong leadership.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/28/us/politics/kamala-harris-donald-trump-2024-election.html
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
