This is the second case in which I have occasion to refer to pissants. For those who did not see my earlier description of pissants, it should be remembered that pissants are living creatures. They exist primarily in rural areas of this country. They have no eyesight but their hearing apparatus seems to be in good order. They travel in swarms. Thus it is that when one pissant makes a discovery of either something to eat or a fresh place to swarm, the whole pissant swarm will soon descend.
My mother, a very religious woman, often used the term pissants to refer to inconsequential politicians whom she abhorred. If my mother used the term pissant to refer to a politician, you may rest assured that the politician was as inconsequential as could be imagined. In this essay, I intend to make reference to two politicians of considerable pissantery. My mother has been gone since 1951 but if she were alive today I am certain that she would applaud the choice of labeling these two politicians as pissants. The politicians are Lindsey Graham, the senior senator from South Carolina, and Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel.
Let us start with Lindsey Graham. Most observers of the American political scene will recall that in the early part of 2013, the President named choices for his new cabinet. One of the choices that he has made is Chuck Hagel, the former senator from Nebraska who has been proposed as Secretary of Defense.
In personal terms, I have always been a Democrat. Over the past seven or eight years, I have come to admire Chuck Hagel, who is a Republican. He is a former soldier in the Vietnam War and I can think of no one more qualified to run the affairs of the Defense Department than Chuck Hagel. In other words, he has my full approval to run that job.
But now we hear from the eminent pissant from South Carolina. When Lindsey Graham speaks, it is always in a whiney tone. In short, Lindsey Graham is a school-teacherish sort of person.
In the instant case, it appears that Chuck Hagel has made some disparaging remarks either about homosexuality or about the ability of Israel to defend itself. Hagel is a blunt man. I greatly appreciate his bluntness. If you could lay out a measurement of Hagel’s bluntness, it would appear on the high end of the scale. On the other hand, far removed from reality at the low end of the scale would come the whiney notes of Lindsey Graham.
In the current controversy, Lindsey Graham does not have enough manliness to say, “I oppose Chuck Hagel.” Everyone knows that in the end Hagel will not have Lindsey Graham’s support. But rather than saying he opposes Hagel, he hides behind descriptions such as, “The remarks Hagel has made in the past are very troublesome to me.” In other words, it is clear that he intends to vote against Hagel. He is trying to say to the public that he wishes to give Hagel a fair shake but he is troubled by remarks made at least 14 years in the past.
In personal terms, Graham is a man of 55 years. He has never been married. In a recent interview, he insisted that he is not gay. Very well. I take him at his word. But this does not excuse the whiney tone he uses to make his announcements. Now we are left to wait for the confirmation
hearings and the vote in the Senate that will take place before Chuck Hagel assumes his role as our director of defense. It will probably be at least two months before the vote is taken confirming Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense. This assumes that he will not say, “To hell with this political business” including dealing with pissants like Lindsey Graham. But mark me down as a Chuck Hagel supporter. He may not come from a political party which I have admired, but nonetheless Hagel is a good man and should get the job.
Now that we have dealt with Lindsey Graham, let’s turn to the second pissant, who is the Prime Minister of the State of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is a blustery type who hopes that his listeners are blown away by his command of the English language. Unlike his predecessors as prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu has had limited military experience. But that does not keep Netanyahu, the pissant, from criticizing any move he does not approve of in the Middle East. The Israelis have a lobbying organization in this country called AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). Like Netanyahu, it is an aggressive organization.
The state of Israel was founded in 1948 during the presidency of Harry Truman. As I understood it, the state of Israel was founded very much on the lines of the founding of the United States. It was to offer the Jews and other refugees from the Middle East a place to come home to. Nothing was ever said that it would be the Jewish state. It was going to be a democratic state, which would obviously be influenced by Jewish interests. But now Netanyahu insists that Israel be called the Jewish State. I believe that if Harry Truman or Yitzhak Rabin were alive today, they would take great exception to Netanyahu calling it the Jewish State.
Now we go on to what I believe is Netanyahu’s pissantery. The fact of the matter is that Israel exists only because of the backing of the United States. As evidence of our sponsorship we have given the Israelis about $3 billion annually from the Treasury of this country. It seems that that does not stop Netanyahu and the AIPAC organization from complaining or whining. Over the years, I have made perhaps 15 visits to Israel. The men I have met with in Israel are to be greatly admired. There is a great contrast between the men I dealt with 25 years ago and the whinings of Benjamin Netanyahu. When I say Netanyahu, I include his AIPAC organization as well.
The President of the United States has a frosty relationship with Netanyahu. It is sort of like Lindsey Graham whining that Obama does not treat him as a full-fledged equal. In the final analysis, I hold that the state of Israel is a good one but clearly under the direction of Netanyahu, it interprets every movement in this country as a slight to Israeli influences. Netanyahu is an expert in the gathering of these slights. More than anything else, if the United States does not do very much what Netanyahu wants, he will complain. In this regard, his complaints are of the nature of the tail wagging the dog.
There you have Lindsey Graham and Benjamin Netanyahu whom this essayist concludes are nothing more than pissants. I suspect that if Harry Truman were alive today, or my mother, they would truly endorse my labeling of these two men as pissants. Any proposition that will get the endorsement of Harry Truman and my mother is one that we should all take refuge in.
I am fully aware that my belief in the pissantery of Lindsey Graham and Benjamin Netanyahu will not change their conduct but it pleases me no end to have Lindsey Graham and Benjamin Netanyahu labeled as pissants. Those two richly deserve such a designation.
E. E. CARR
January 11, 2013
Essay 730
~~
Kevin’s commentary: I do not actually know too much about Lindsey Graham. But Jen says he spends more time on TV than he does doing his job. She also notes that he seems to be the one who always seems to be interviewed for one thing or another, and that his views tend to be contrary to whoever is interviewing him. I certainly saw enough of the man during the whole Benghazi kerfuffle. So I heartily agree with the pissant designation.
In Netanyahu’s case I am unfortunately even less informed. I will have to study up before I pass judgement but in the interim I will trust Pop’s mother, who to the best of my knowledge was a sound judge of character.