They Dare to Speak Out

52 They Dare to Speak Out
that aid to Israel, on a roll call vote, will receive overwhelming support.
Administration lobbyists count on this support to carry the day
for foreign aid worldwide. Working together, the two groups of lobbyists
pursue a common interest by keeping the waters smooth and frustrating
"boat rockers" like McCloskey.
Assaulting the Citadels
For McCloskey, compromise was an unusual experience.
Throughout his public career he usually resisted pressures, even when
his critics struck harshly.
This was true when he became nationally prominent as a critic of
the Vietnam war-an effort that led him in 1972 to a brief but dramatic
campaign for the presidency. His goal was a broad and unfettered
discussion of public issues, particularly the war. The wrong decisions,
he believed, generally "came about because the view of the minority
was not heard or the view of thinking people was quiet." He contended
that the Nixon administration was withholding vital information on a
variety of issues. He charged it with "preying on people's fear, hate and
anger."
When McCloskey announced for president, his supporters sighed,
"Political suicide." His opponents, particularly those in the party's
right wing, chortled the very same words. Although the Californian
recognized that his challenge might jeopardize his seat in Congress, he
nevertheless denounced the continuation of the war: "Like other
Americans, I trusted President Nixon when he said he had a plan to
end the war." McCloskey agonized over the fact that thousands of U.S.
soldiers continued to die, and United States airpower, using horrifying
cluster bombs, rained violence on civilians in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
McCloskey knew war's effects firsthand. As a Marine in Korea he
was wounded leading his platoon in several successful bayonet assaults
on entrenched enemy positions. He emerged from the Korean war with
a Navy Cross, Silver Star and two Purple Hearts. He later explained
that this wartime experience gave him "a strong sense of being lucky to
be alive." It also toughened him for subsequent assaults on entrenched
enemies of a different sort-endeavors which brought no medals for
bravery.
For protesting the war, McCloskey was branded "an enemy of the
political process," and even accused of communist leanings. "At least
fifty right-wing members of the House believe McCloskey to be the
new Red menace," wrote one journalist. The allegation was ridiculous,
Stilling the Still, Small Voices 53
of course, but party stalwarts in California clearly were restive. So
much so, according to the California Journal, that he "needed the
personal intervention of then Vice-President Gerald R. Ford to save
him in the 1974 primary."
His maverick ways exacted a price. He was twice denied a place
on the Ways and Means Committee. Con servatives on the California
delegation rebuffed the liberal Republican's bid for membership, even
though he was entitled to the post on the basis of seniority.
By the time of his ill-fated 1980 amendment on aid to Israel,
McCloskey had put himself in the midst of the Middle East controversy.
After a trip to the Middle East in 1979, he concluded that new
Israeli policies were not in America's best interests. He was alarmed
over Washington's failure to halt Israel's construction of West Bank
settlements-which the Administration itself had labeled illegal-and
to stop Israel's illegal use of U.S.-supplied weapons. The Congressman
asked, "Why?"
The answer was not hard to find. The issue, like most relating to
the Middle East, was too hot for either Congress or the White House to
handle. A call for debate provoked harsh press attacks and angry constituent
mail. To McCloskey, the attacks were ironic. He viewed himself
as supportive of both Jewish and Israeli interests. As a college
student at Stanford University in 1948, he had helped lead a successful
campaign to open Phi Delta Theta fraternity for the first time to Jewish
students. He reminded a critic, Earl Raab of the San Francisco Jewish
Bulletin, that he had "voted for all the military and economic assistance
we have given to Israel in the past." McCloskey also vigorously defended
Israel's right to lobby: "Lobbying is and should be an honorable
and important part of the American political process." He described
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee as "the most powerful
[lobby] in Washington," insisting there was "nothing sinister or devious"
about it.
Still, McCloskey had raised a provocative question: "Does
America's 'Israeli lobby' wield too much influence?" In an article for
the Los Angeles Times he provided his answer: "Yes, it is an obstacle
to real Mideast peace." McCloskey cited the risk of nuclear confrontation
in the Middle East and the fundamental differences between the
interests of Israel and the United States. He observed that members of
the Jewish community demand that Congress support Israel in spite of
these differences. This demand, he argued, "coupled with the weakness
of Congress in the face of any such force, can prevent the president,
in his hour of both crisis and opportunity, from having the
flexibility necessary to achieve a lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace."