To the Jewish people of the world, Monday night begins the Jewish New Year of Rosh Hashanah.
To the Muslim people of the world, Tuesday marks th end of the holy month of Ramadan.
To the Christian, Buddhist, and others of the world, may you be partners with your brethren for world peace.
To the Atheists and Agnostics of the world, to quote Anthony Clark, “I hope you win the lottery dude.”
I will not be blogging on Rosh Hashanah, but thankfully I have some pre-written columns.
I had the pleasure recently of interviewing Financier David Blumberg of Blumberg Capital.
Like me, David is a member of the Republican Jewish Coalition Leadership.
My desire to interview David stems from the fact that he is an amalgamation of many different groups. He and his partner live in the Haight Ashbury area of San Francisco, famous for being the hotbed of liberal activism. David is gay and Jewish. His partner is gay, Jewish, and French. Yet the strange aspect of their life is that they are both staunch republicans.
David’s background allows him to offer insights on various topics as few people can. While he is very political, as a finance guy he can more than hold his own on economic issues.
I had the pleasure of meeting him and his partner when they hosted a Hanukkah event featuring notable Jewish republicans such as Mona Charen, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, and John Podhoretz.
David is aware that I still cannot figure out why lesbian conservative radio host Tammy Bruce will not go out with me. He also knows that as a single man, I am pro gay rights because it reduces my competition for women.
We disagree on my hard line stance against lesbianism, although he understands that I only condemn it when the women are attractive.
Most importantly, I am glad to have David as a friend. He is a genuinely nice person, and his orientation is secondary to his political instincts, which are very keen.
With that, I present part one of my three part interview with David Blumberg.
1) How does a nice Jewish person from a good family end up, horror of horrors, politically republican? As for your partner, how does a French Jewish person end up supporting American republicans? Given that you happen to be gay, how does this fit into your being republican?
I was a moderate Democrat for my entire adult life until 2002 when at age 43 I changed my registration to Republican. I was a Democrat chiefly because my parents and grandparents and most of the folks I knew growing up in Fresno, California were Democrats. The vast majority of Democrats I knew in Fresno were moderate to conservative. We knew a few families who were noticeably leftist, but we considered them slightly wacky, too radical and didn’t take them very seriously. Most of the moderate Democrats I knew were comfortable with the traditional Democratic positions on the Cold-War and a strong defense perspective that produced Congressmen Henry “Scoop” Jackson and Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Presidents Truman, Kennedy and Johnson. Most adult men I knew were my father’s age or older, so they had served in the US military in Korea or WWII and were quietly proud of their service and their country.
Most of the families I knew weren’t passionate one way or the other about the Vietnam War, but they thought the protesters at UC Berkeley and other campuses were too radical and were insufficiently respectful of fundamental American values. For example, I recall my parents went to see the rock musical Hair in San Francisco in the early 1970s. The show was designed to offend traditional morés of middle class Americans, but my parents put up with the foul language, gratuitous nudity, raunchy sexuality and political mockery until an actor burned the US flag on stage. At that point, my Korean War veteran dad gently took my mom’s hand and they walked out of the theatre in shock and disgusted by the in- your-face anti-Americanism on stage.
I have always been an idealist believing in individual rights and a realist because I believe it is our individual and societal responsibility to advance towards the good. I think that free markets and the resultant culture of innovation, consensual politics and religious pluralisim are the greatest promoters of a better life for the greatest number of people in the shortest possible timeframe. Hence I think that limited government, technological innovation and consumer choice are fundamental principles for positive change. On most domestic issues, I tend to agree with the maxim, “The government that governs least, governs best”.
In the realm of international affairs, however, there are still too many dictatorships and other rogue states which would be characterized by what the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes termed the “State of Nature”, which he described as – short, nasty and brutish. It is a stark fact that nearly all our current adversaries are tyrannical dictatorships, unsavory and criminally corrupt regimes and terrorist groups who oppress and harm their own people and use terrorism as a tool of warfare to threaten our national interests as well. Hence as the world’s only remaining superpower, it is vital for the US to maintain a capable military posture to prevent rising threats when possible and to respond quickly when needed to protect our interests and support our allies.
From a very young age I had developed a keen interest in politics and international affairs. I was active in student government in high school and participated in statewide and national political events ever since. At Harvard, I majored in Government and focused on International Relations with a good dose of Economics and History. I was very active in the Harvard JFK School of Government Institute of Politics and other organizations and in many election field campaigns – almost all for Democrats until my great awakening after 9/11. Like too many Democrats, I had naively and ignorantly come to believe that most Republicans were smart and rich, but they were selfish and heartless. The Democratic talking point mantra was that Republicans were old, rich, straight, white, Christian men who wanted to oppress or ignore all the rest of America. During most college summers, I worked in Washington, DC, first for the Export-Import Bank of the US, then AIPAC and Congressman Tony Coelho (Democratic Whip). Each role provided some insight into the workings of Washington including the excitement and dynamism, as well as the dysfunction and unsavory nature of the political world.
I also developed a strong Jewish identity rather early. One day at age 11, I returned from Temple Beth Israel’s Sunday school and announced that I wanted us to celebrate Chanukah and no longer have a Christmas tree. I also developed a very strong connection with Israel and became a lifelong Zionist. My interest in Israel and Zionism led me to study and recognize the dangers of the fundamentalist Muslim and secular dictatorships of the Middle East, often allied with the communist dictatorship of the Soviet Union and kleptocratic dictators in the developing countries. I learned that those countries represented a witches brew of oppression and demagogically fomented hatred which posed a real threat to their own peoples, neighboring countries, and Israel. Moreover, as the technology and “successful” use of terror increased, the threat to the US and Western Civilization grew more obvious – or so I thought. In the 1990s many of us were temporarily lulled into a false sense of security as the Soviet Union crumbled under its own “internal contractions” and with a good push from President Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher.
Nevertheless, since the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979, the growth of Islamic radicalism and other forces aligned against Western Civilization has been much on my mind. I think the best antidote to radical Islam is political reform along the lines recommended by Minister Natan Sharansky who wrote The Case For Democracy and Ambassador Mark Palmer who wrote Breaking The Real Axis of Evil, How to Oust The World’s Remaining Dictators by 2025. The perspective elucidated by both authors is a principal reason we must support a secure, strong, independent, secular Iraq, governed as a consensual republic with rule of law, free markets and constitutional protections for human rights.
My partner, Michel Armand, worked for the French Foreign Ministry for seven years, but he has generally supported the US foreign policy initiatives of President Bush. Michel supported the wars to help liberate Afghanistan and Iraq. He was a vocal critic of Chirac and a strong supporter of Sarkozy so we are fairly well aligned. He supports a strong defense against radical Islam and concurs in the view that political reform of dictatorships is an important goal for global, human well-being and long-term stability.
With regard to issues affecting the gay community, I believe in an evolutionary approach, not a radical, confrontational dogma. I think that science creates the fundamentals of new technology which lead to businesses commercialization then behavioral change by consumers, which then leads to changed attitudes which in turn leads to political changes. This is because most politicians are followers, not leaders – especially on deeply held issues of religious or emotional commitment to view on abortion, gay issues, prayer in school, etc. Politicians very rarely vote contrary to the polling data on such matters in their districts. This makes politics a rather ineffective medium for change. Nevertheless, I prefer legislative change to judicial interference in such matters. I think that legislated changes are much more easily accepted by the population and engender less backlash and social strife. I prefer an incremental approach that makes a series of small improvements rather than pressing for major and radical jump-shifts in policy. I am less interested in symbolism of equality than in equal opportunity and treatment under law. In recent times I have come to see issues of National Security and Economic vitality as much more important than most other domestic issues. Without success in the former two characteristics, the other issues pale in importance.
Tomorrow I present the second part of my three part interview with David Blumberg.
eric
“Most of the families I knew weren’t passionate one way or the other about the Vietnam War, but they thought the protesters at UC Berkeley and other campuses were too radical and were insufficiently respectful of fundamental American values.”
Huh. And all this time I thought protest is a fundamental American value? But hey, this comes from someone who apparently didn’t care one way or another about the whoesale slaughter of three million Vietnamese.
“On most domestic issues, I tend to agree with the maxim, “The government that governs least, governs best””
Yeah, well, I’m sure most financiers feel that way. Of course, if you were to apply that rule across the board, you’d have a rather ineffective government. And considering how much government has grown under republicans over the past 30 years, it’s kinda hard to understand why someone who believes in this (simplistic) mantra would be a republican in the first place.
“In recent times I have come to see issues of National Security and economic vitality as much more important than most other domestic issues.”
Again… The GOP has failed miserably with both these concerns. Me thinks Mr. Blumberg is burning the intellectual candle at both ends…
JMJ
“Yeah, well, I’m sure most financiers feel that way. Of course, if you were to apply that rule across the board, you’d have a rather ineffective government. ”
Nice try, but he wasnt refering to the whole board.
” And all this time I thought protest is a fundamental American value? ”
Yea, but not when you start throwing crap (literally) at people, burning things and creating localized anarchy.
“it’s kinda hard to understand why someone who believes in this (simplistic) mantra would be a republican in the first place.”
Simplistic only if you think that its all the cons fault that out government has grown and choose to ignore the fact that large government is praticlly the dems slogan.
Me thinks you need a candle
So whats new ?
No party has grown the size of government more than the GOP, Micky. That’s a fact.
JMJ
“Huh. And all this time I thought protest is a fundamental American value? But hey, this comes from someone who apparently didn’t care one way or another about the whoesale slaughter of three million Vietnamese.”
Dammit! I paid retail for an identical slaughter. Strawman much? I thought you said you didn’t want attacks on style. If he says most families weren’t passionate about Vietnam you attack him for not believing in the cause without even knowing his stance? Tsk, tsk. Maybe you got your information somewhere else.
You also threw the baby out with the bathwater on him “tend”ing to believe his maxim. However, I have to agree that having both houses of Congress and the Presidency in the same party “tends” to increase the size of government more than having them split between the two.
McCain will appreciate your vote.
McCain would have had my vote if A) the Bush administration wasn’t the most disasterous since Coolidge and B) the War on Terror wasn’t completely our of control. While I usually am a strong proponent of split government, I’ve come to believe that the damage done to this nation by the GWOT and the late GOP one-party state must be undone with as much haste as possible and only a reverse one-party Democrat state can come anywhere near accomplishing that.
As for Mr. Blumberg, I don’t think his interests lay in the well-being and future of the United States, and probably never really have nor will. But I only get that from this one little interview, so I can’t be sure.
JMJ
” I’ve come to believe that the damage done to this nation by the GWOT and the late GOP one-party state must be undone with as much haste as possible and only a reverse one-party Democrat state can come anywhere near accomplishing that.”
Yea, bigger government/2 party state is OK. if its the dems running both ends.
How ridiculously partisan and absurd is that ?
If Pelosis actions today are any example of what Jersey is talking about e might as well slit all our wrists now
I don’t think the Dems could make the gov’t any bigger than it is. History shares that opinion. I think we’d see a shrinking of gov’t, if anything. I think we’d see a shrinking of the deficit and debt as well. I think we’d see greater gov’t revenues and a shrinking of the disparity of wealth. I think we’d see a dramtic downsizing of gov’t contracting. I also believe we’d see a rising value of the dollar. On the other hand, the trade deficit will probably continue to grow. Military spending will remain too high (now it kind of has to). Jobs will continue to move overseas, etc. You and I, Micky, will not notice much of a change in our lives. But the future for our children would be a litttle, on the whole, brighter.
JMJ
” don’t think the Dems could make the gov’t any bigger than it is. History shares that opinion.”
Thats a line of crap. the dems slogan/MO has always been for more government.
Regulating this and that, socialized health care , get it ?
How does history share an opinion of something that is in process ?
To be as big as it ever was is true, but to say this is as big as it can get and history sides with that is moronic.
It could get bigger tommorow.
Yea, I’ve heard all you guys scare tactics before, the weather, “think of the children”.
If you dont think of the children the same way we do you’re evil.
Like with the CHIPS bill.
The only reason we rejected the latest amendment to it was because there were 28 year olds making 80,000.00 a year on it.
And then Pelosi marchs a bunch of sick kids out on stage.
Nice, real nice..
I lost 10,000.00 in the last 2 weeks, so spare me.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/images/stories/chartspage/outlaysrevenuespergdphist.gif
As you can see from the graph, as a percentage of GDP, the size of gov’t has remained pretty steady since after WWII, but the size has always risen under GOP presidents and shrunk under Democrats. The “Big Government Democrats” are a myth. It is actually the GOP that has increased the size of government over the years.
Republicans often point out programs, rather than expenditures or revenues, as the prime indicator of size, but actually the big Democratic entitlement programs are actually quite lean on actual size and cost. Medicare’s overhead has always had less than 4% overhead, compared to the roughly 30% overhead of private insurance companies. Social Security’s overhead is less than 1%, while PRAs average 3%. So, while these entitlement may appear to represent “big government,” they are actually quite cost effective and place little to no government control over the beneficiaries. Meanwhile, the GOP’s big spending tends toward large Daddy State instutitions, like the military, police and prisons, private contractors to do gov’t work – and these institutions are all about control.
Private debt collectors for the IRA has completely failed, raking in some 15% in overhead and collecting only about 8% of what’s out there. And it makes perfect sense – these agencies don’t even know what they’re collecting and so have no ability to negotiate or reconcile.
Private military contractors not only have high overhead, but costs that are far higher than regular military costs, with profit margins of up to 50%.
And as we can see from this latest post-GOP state debacle, deregulation almost always costs the taxpayers more in the end.
But, no matter how much proof you cons see, you’ll simply refuse to accept the truth – the GOP is the party of wasteful spending and big, intrusive, and institutionally corrupt government.
JMJ
What a joke Jersey.
That only reflects GDP, not the size of an administration or its reach into operations.
“Medicare’s overhead has always had less than 4% overhead, compared to the roughly 30% overhead of private insurance companies.”
You cant compare to private industry, thats just dumb.
and it still reflects more government as medicare is govt. and the private sector is not.
Just alone in the last few months the dems have given nothing but clear indications that government will grow under them, increase the minimum wage, subsidise drug prices, provide universal health insurance , install progressive taxation, huge investments into R&D on energy alternatives, hand out 5000.00 each for college tuitions like lollipops, and then theres all the global warming initiatives that will intrude into our everyday lives.
Not to mention the dems trying to control the market right now by this ridiculous bill they want everyone to sign
But Medicare pays private entities, Micky, and is far more cost effective than private insurance. But the point here is simple – Democratic programs tend to be profitable to the public, while GOP programs tend to be money pits.
JMJ
Whatever Jeresy.
Its still more and more government ruling our lives.
I’m not talking about who spends or wates more on what.
I’m talking about government beinf a bigger part of lives, infusing itself into every aspect of every decision we make.
You schmucks think we cant think for ourselves, you have the gall to think we should be lead by the had.
Just gives us your money an we’ll take care of the rest.
The problem with medicare is that with or with out govt reins the subcontraction will always get its money.
Its the ability to make the organizing of benefits that scares me.
ya profitable to the public.
Thats why more and more parents are opting for home schooling
How is a pot for insurance, pharmaceuticals and medical services “the government running our lives?” And who the #@!! in their right mind cares about the government running anything if they’re not even alive???
JMJ
[…] My Interview With David Blumberg […]
[…] My Interview With David Blumberg […]