Home » Posts tagged 'Politics' (Page 16)

Tag Archives: Politics

Why Jews are Liberals

After primary candidates addressed the Republican Jewish Coalition last week, it’s worth revisiting these thoughts from 2010 examining the overwhelming support by Jews of Democrat candidates year after year after year:

bernie-sanders-republican-hypocritesNow that even the New York Times has acknowledged Barack Obama’s confrontational stance toward the State of Israel, one might wonder why American Jews have yet to demonstrate even a hint of buyer’s remorse over their ardent support for the president in the last general election. Long-time Commentary Magazine editor Norman Podhoretz wondered the same thing in a Wall Street Journal editorial last September, in which he posed the title question, “Why are Jews Liberals?”

The article — then a teaser for the author’s new book by the same name — never got around to answering its own question. Indeed, Mr. Podhoretz seemed distinctly less interested in contemplating why Jews are liberal than in pontificating about why they should be more conservative.

He has a point. For over three thousand years, Jewish society has promoted what today are called “traditional values,” those social mores that came to define “tradition” precisely because they were universally held by so many for so long. The sanctity of life, of family, of sexuality, of charity, and of prayer — all these find their origins in Torah Judaism. Moreover, throughout the Biblical and Talmudic eras the structure of the Jewish socioeconomic community was essentially capitalistic, with the free market determining business activity and the social safety net for the poor and the weak provided (successfully) by individual responsibility within a framework of communal obligation

Why then, asked Mr. Podhoretz, have American Jews indulged their love affair with liberalism since Franklin Roosevelt (who demurred from even a token act of intervention on behalf of the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis)? Why did American Jews disregard John McCain’s long record of support for Israel and Barack Obama’s open association with known anti-Semites to vote for Mr. Obama by a margin of almost four-to-one? (And why, I might add, if the vote were held today, would the likely results be just about the same?)

Good questions. And although Mr. Podhoretz sidestepped any effort to answer them, there is an answer.

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS
As much as all conservative values trace their origins to Jewish tradition, liberal values trace their origins to the same source — to exactly the same degree.

No one has articulated this better than the non-Jewish historian Paul Johnson: “To [the Jews] we owe the idea of equality before the law, both divine and human; of the sanctity of life and the dignity of human person; of the individual conscience and so a personal redemption; of collective conscience and so of social responsibility; of peace as an abstract ideal and love as the foundation of justice, and many other items which constitute the basic moral furniture of the human mind.” In other words, Judaism is an ideology devoted to the betterment of the human condition based upon values and goals that are fundamentally liberal.

liberal-conservativeThat being said, it may be the greatest misconception of the modern ideological divide that conservatism and liberalism must be mutually exclusive. Conservative traditionalism emphasizes the necessity of building upon the past, while liberal idealism focuses upon the responsibility to shape the future. Conservatism without forward thinking becomes calcified and reactionary. Liberalism without respect for tradition mutates into caricature and absurdity.

The corruption of modern liberalism is evident across the spectrum of political ideology. The sanctity of life has devolved into the rejection of capital punishment while simultaneously negating both the value and the rights of the unborn. The dignity of human person has been distorted to support euthanasia for both unwanted infants and the elderly infirm. Equality before the law has become a bludgeon in the hands of criminals and a straightjacket to constrain victims. Collective conscience has become the underpinning of nonjudgmentalism, whereby every form of perversion gains acceptance as an “alternative lifestyle.” The notion of divinity has vanished altogether, replaced by the self-worship of secular humanism.

Oblivious to these resounding contradictions, secular Jews have rallied to modern liberalism under the banner of tikkun olam, literally “the rectification of the world.” In its new, common usage, however, tikkun olam means something very different from what it meant when the concept was first articulated over 32 centuries ago.

TO REPAIR THE WORLD

Advocacy for saving the rainforests and for saving the whales, for developing renewable resources and for leaving a smaller carbon footprint — these are just some of the enterprises gathered by pop-Jewish philosophy under the umbrella of tikkun olam. According to the ancient wisdom of the Torah, however, every human being is a microcosm of Creation, a world — or olam — unto himself. Yes, it is important for human beings to act as responsible custodians of the Almighty’s world, but the rectification of the universe is a process that ultimately begins and ends within oneself.

How does an individual repair himself and thereby bring his world a step closer to perfection? By cultivating moral behavior and spiritual sensitivity based upon traditional values through acts of kindness, charity, and spiritual self-discipline. When I change myself, I change the world around me, and I do so far more substantially than by trying to change others while I remain the same. My own mandate to repair the world rests upon me alone and can be delegated to no one else.

Modern liberalism has adopted the belief that change depends upon governmental and judicial activism. Ironically, by shifting responsibility for social justice from the individual to the state, modern liberals have abdicated their own responsibility to address the very injustices they yearn to change. And with the abdication of social responsibility, it requires only a short step before even the most basic moral and spiritual axioms are similarly discarded. Finally, with no moral compass to guide it, modern liberalism has embraced the amorality of ancient Greece and the bacchanalia of ancient Rome not only as lifestyles but as models in the image of which contemporary society should be remade.

In truth, the liberal impulse is not only healthy but integral to human existence in general and to the mission of the Jewish people in particular. That impulse proves beneficial, however, only when guided by fealty toward the traditional values that have become associated with conservatism. By cutting themselves off from their spiritual moorings, secular Jews have indeed become the most exuberant seekers of causes for social and environmental justice as they seek any available ism to replace the calling of their ancestral heritage. But their headlong stampede toward utopianism more often resembles the frantic race of lemmings to the sea than an effective campaign for global reconstruction.

Mr. Podhoretz wonders at the alliance of American Jews with the liberal apologists who level every imaginable indictment against the country that granted them the freedom to achieve unprecedented prosperity. In the aftermath of the Passover holiday, it is worth reflecting upon the Jewish concept of freedom. To be truly free, we have to define morality not according to passing fads and fancies but according to the precepts that determine who we are and from where we have come. Only when we fully understand and commit ourselves to the principles that have sustained us since the dawn of civilization can we truly repair the world.

Originally published by Jewish World Review

Terrorism Close to Home

Flickr_-_Israel_Defense_Forces_-_The_IDF_Honors_Its_ReservistsThis morning’s terrorist attack by a Palestinian who rammed his car into Israeli soldiers at a bus station struck a little closer to home.  Both of the injured soldiers had just drafted into the army and were friends of my son from the same Lone Soldier group.  They were released on leave a day before my son was, or he probably would have been standing right beside them.

At least one of them will be disabled for months:  the Guardian reports this as “light to moderate” injury.

The story in the Guardian led by stating that the attack took place in the “occupied West Bank,” implying a John-Kerryesque legitimacy, then went on to report that the “incident raises the number of Palestinians killed since 1 October to 98, including an Israeli Arab.”  In the interest of balance, the story did concede that, “More than half of them have been alleged perpetrators of stabbing, shooting and car ramming attacks aimed at Israeli civilians and security forces.”

However, the story neglected to mention that after ramming his car into the crowd, the Arab attacker was shot as he tried to stab one of his victims.

Allegedly.

Not the worst example of media bias by far, but shoddy journalism by any account.  Our children who put themselves in harm’s way to protect others from violence deserve much better.

The Legacy of Woodrow Wilson

564f3cc7c10e0.imageOnce Iowa Democrats decided to rename the venerated event known as the Jefferson-Jackson dinner, it was only a matter of time before PC zealots would start demanding the purge of historical icons all across America.  After all, how in good conscience can a country continue to commemorate its most influential leaders if they failed to anticipate that the legal and universally-accepted institutions of their times would eventually be regarded as immoral by their great-grandchildren?

Now it’s Woodrow Wilson’s turn, as students at Princeton demand that the memory of their university’s former president be expunged from under the heavens because he supported segregation, a policy viewed by many as progressive a century ago, no matter what we may think of it now.

There is a deeper irony in their campaign, however.  In terms of political acumen, Woodrow Wilson has quite a bit in common with a much more contemporary figure, one who is revered by the very people who are protesting President Wilson’s racism and misogyny:  Barack Obama.

Read the whole article here.

 

Pollard and Nuremberg

20pollard-web4-master675-v3The case of Jonathan Pollard was more complicated than most people understood.  His actions may have placed others in danger, and may have contributed to the death of agents he compromised.  But almost everyone agrees that his punishment was disproportionate to his crime, and the sense of joy upon his release is more than justified.

The real take-away is this:  whether one agrees with or disagrees with what Mr. Pollard did, he followed his conscience, and he was prepared to accept the consequences of his actions.  If only more of our fellow citizens and more of our political leaders demonstrated the same courage and conviction.

Of course, not everyone’s moral compass is adequately calibrated.  Edward Snowden also believed that he was following his conscience, and the morality of his actions is far more questionable for his having caused more damage by far than did Jonathan Pollard.

The Nuremberg trials after WW II changed forever the interrelationship between civil and moral law.  No longer would it be legitimate to claim “I was only following orders” as a defense for crimes against man.  A soldier has an obligation to refuse to carry out an immoral order, even if by doing so he puts himself in danger of court martial.

We should all consider ourselves foot-soldiers in the culture wars that threaten our society.  But moral obligation implies more than just following our conscience.  It means investing the effort, energy, and thought necessary to understand the decisions we will have to make and their consequences.  Otherwise, our claim to the moral high ground can become a smokescreen to hide our moral irresponsibility.

That’s what makes Jonathan Pollard a hero in the eyes of so many, and Edward Snowden, perhaps, something very different indeed.

The Ostrich Mentality

la-fg-israel-palestinians-stabbing-attack-2015-001More unprovoked murders today in Israel: this time the victims included men in the act of prayer.

The approach taken by the Obama administration and much of European leadership, differentiating between terrorism and Islam so not to further alienate the Muslim world, might sound plausible.  But the incontrovertible evidence from Paris, Beirut, and Tel Aviv is that it’s not working.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali makes a case no thinking person can refute.

But, of course, that’s the point:  people aren’t thinking; they’re feeling.  If only the rich and powerful Western nations would humble themselves before the oppressed peoples of the third world, then there would be peace.  If only the intransigent Israelis would stop their illegal occupation, then there would be peace.  If only the culture of white supremacy in America would confess and atone for its evil ways, then there would be peace.

From the United Nations to the European Union to the White House to many of the elite universities around the country, Utopian ideologues bury their heads in the sand and ignore reality so they can persist in their chants of kumbaya and we are the world, reaching out to embrace people who want nothing but to watch the world burn.

In every aspect of our lives we are becoming more confused:  we alienate our friends while we appease enemies who want to kill us; we disdain the blessings we have while chasing shadows in pursuit of happiness; we preach tolerance while attempting to silence all who disagree with us; we dream of a perfect world while we stand idly by and let madmen tear down the world our fathers and grandfathers worked so hard to build.

The chaos of our times didn’t start this week in Paris.  It won’t end there, either, unless we open our eyes and start confronting the moral anarchy that is eating away at the heart of civilization.

James Zogby is Right: Israel is Like Ferguson

Ferguson-Palestine-Protest-APRandom acts of violence.  Daily stabbings.  Bystanders run down on the sidewalks.  A religious couple shot dead in front of their four children.

So says James Zogby, president of the Arab-American Institute.  But Mr. Zogby offered an additional insight in a recent interview with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC.

“Palestinian lives matter,” declared Mr. Zogby.

“Look, there’s a bit of Ferguson going on here. Maybe a little bit more than a bit of Ferguson…  Unless we find a way for those who control the occupation — it’s not the Palestinians, it’s the Israelis — to give these kids a ray of hope, to say that there is a future for you that’s different than what you’re seeing right now, this isn’t going to end… The violence is the result of a situation of despair that is eating away at the lives and souls of both peoples.

“Palestinians are at the end of the day the ultimate victims.”

Mr. Zogby’s comparison is absolutely right.  But he’s right for all the wrong reasons.

Read the whole article here.

When Monsters Lurk in Every Shadow

Originally published by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and Aish.com.

classic-monsters1Every year at Halloween, my wife and I lay in a supply of candy for the trick-or-treaters who come knocking at our door, even though neither we nor our children observe the rituals of the day. Only once did we fail in our preparations: that was the year we forgot to brief our four-year-old son on the creepy customs of this curious festival.

Shortly after dark, I watched from the window as the first of our nocturnal visitors arrived, alighting from a minivan that idled beside the curb and swiftly approaching our front door. The doorbell rang, and my son raced to answer it, excited only by the prospect of an unexpected visitor.

Imagine his surprise, upon throwing open the door, to find himself face to face with a 4-foot-high Frankenstein’s monster complete with rubbery green skin, oozing stitches, and bolts protruding from its neck. Imagine further the surprise of our gruesome little guest when he stepped forward with his bag held open, only to receive a two handed shove in the chest and have the door slammed in his face by a ferocious four-year-old shrieking, “Monsters!”

Young Frankenstein took off toward his car at full flight, also screaming, “Monsters!”

We sorted the matter out and little Frankenstein got his Milk Duds, but it was a long time before my son was willing to answer the door again. That’s a normal response, for a four-year-old. I have to wonder, however, if we aren’t all spending far too much time peering out from behind our curtains and seeing monsters lurking in every shadow.

The simple minds of children sort out the dichotomy of their worlds in the most rudimentary fashion: us and them, superheroes and monsters, good guys and bad guys. And the good guys always wear white.

As we grow up, however, we should come to appreciate that the world is considerably more complex, that the good guys don’t always look like us and the bad guys sometimes do. Unfortunately, by longing for the simplicity of childhood, many adults cling to an either/or view of the world as unsophisticated as a child’s. And although childishness in children may be cute, in adults it is not only embarrassing, but dangerous.

The desire for a return to simplicity is easily understood. As technology and social evolution spin our world around faster and faster, people are seeking common belief, common culture, and common interest to steady them against the storm. Indeed, cultural continuity and a sense of community are among the most stabilizing factors within families and society. But when we begin to feel threatened in our own beliefs and insecure in our own cultures simply because others are expressing their beliefs and cultures in their own way, then culture becomes a battlefront across which enemies stand ready to attack.

One response to this kind of uneasiness is to become a universalist. “I’m okay, you’re okay, and everyone else is okay, too.” The only one not okay is the one who passes judgment on others. This is a comforting philosophy, which may explain its popularity. It also explains a report last year that teachers in high school and college failed to persuade a large percentage of their students to take a stand in condemnation of Hitler’s Nazis: by refusing to concede that one ideology is better or worse than any other, the students eliminated the need of ever having to defend their own.

Universal-Monsters-halloween-36931352-480-310A second response calls for a good offense as the best defense. By attacking the shortcomings of others, I deflect attention away from my own. It doesn’t take much imagination, either, since virtually every religion and culture has enough dirty laundry to provide any supermarket-aisle tabloid with a supply of juicy banner headlines. But all that soiled laundry, aired in the light of day, only feeds our mistrust and paranoia, without providing any direction toward cleaning up the messes that we have made ourselves.

The only reasoned response to cultural insecurity and, as such, the most difficult, is for all of us to study and learn about our respective cultures and ideologies well enough that we immunize ourselves against the xenophobia that results from ambivalence in our convictions. When I truly understanding my own identity, my heritage, and my beliefs, when I take responsibility for my faults and begin working to correct them, only then can I move toward confidently separating attitudes that are wrongheaded from those that merely differ from my own.

“Know how to answer a heretic,” the Talmud says. You don’t necessarily have to engage him in debate, but you do have to know, for your own peace of mind, why his beliefs differ from yours. Without such knowledge, we are helpless to discern what hides behind the masks all around us, helpless to recognize the difference between dangerous fanatics and simple neighbors, between real monsters and children whose only wish is that we add a little sweetness to their lives.

 

Maybe they really can’t handle the truth

book-892136_1920Earlier this week, James Zogby, president of the Arab-American Institute, told Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC that “Palestinian lives matter,” drawing a comparison between the violence in Israel and Ferguson, Missouri.

I was asked to comment on the Crane Durham radio program in a discussion about the historical and political origins of Mideast violence.

You can listen to the interview here.

Memes by Theo Ellis

How to Choose a Candidate

Brujula_1We complain about our leaders.  But are we doing all we can and should do to put responsible leaders in positions of authority, or do we deserve what we’ve been getting?

Here are some insights into political leadership and decision making in my radio interview with James Lowe.

The interview begins at 18:30 here.

 

The Price of Principle

republican-national-committee-backtracks-after-cringeworthy-attempt-to-honor-rosa-parksEarly last month, Kentucky clerk Kim Davis became the latest standard-bearer of civil disobedience in the face of governmental overreach.  Her refusal to sign marriage certificates for gay couples made her first a hero among traditionalists in an age of moral anarchy, and then a martyr for conservatism when she chose jail time rather than compromise her beliefs.  In the eyes of many, she has become a latter-day Rosa Parks.

Except that she wasn’t.

Let me be clear.  I agree with Ms. Davis in every way:  the Supreme Court decision conjuring up gay marriage as a constitutional right is an offense against moral and legal tradition, a blow against the crumbling integrity of the family structure upon which civilized society depends, and a travesty of jurisprudence.  In his embarrassing decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy didn’t even pretend that his ruling was based in law, but rather on feelings.  In many ways, he himself set the stage for Ms. Davis’s act of rebellion.

But all of that is really beside the point.

The point is this:  Ms. Davis took an oath of office.  If her conscience does not allow her to fulfill her duty, then the principled course of action is to resign.  There are consequences that go with conviction, and in this case the path of conscience requires her to remove herself from her position, not to assert that her personal values prevent her from discharging her duty while insisting that she can keep her job.  That rationale is akin to Lois Lerner claiming innocence and then taking the fifth.  You can’t have it both ways.

In an interview with Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, Senator Ted Cruz responded to those calling for Ms. Davis to resign by asking, “where have those voices been calling for the Mayor of San Francisco to resign for having made San Francisco a sanctuary city and defied the immigration laws [and] for President Obama to resign — for six in a half year he has defied immigration law, he has defied welfare reform law, he has even defied his own Obamacare…?”

With all due respect, the Senator had it exactly backwards.  By supporting Kim Davis, Senator Cruz undercuts his own objection to President Obama flouting national immigration laws.  If Kim Davis is permitted to pick and choose which laws she follows as a matter of conscience, how is that different from Barack Obama’s failure to enforce legislation his conscience tells him is unjust?

This is what happens when respect for the law gives way before personal ideology, regardless of whether that ideology is right or wrong.  The result is a societal free-for-all, in which individual feelings and sensitivities trump civic order.  My conscience is my own, but it does not permit me to deprive others of their civil rights, no matter how flawed the legal underpinnings of those rights may be.

 

rabbis-talmud-debateNot surprising, there is a talmudic precedent.  On one occasion, the sages of the Sanhedrin, the highest body of Torah legislation, were engaged in an unusually heated debate.  Rabbi Eliezer, the most revered scholar of his time, was unable to convince any of his colleagues to see a particular point of view.  Eventually, he became so frustrated with his fellow scholars that he invoked the name of G-d to support his opinion.

According to tradition, a heavenly voice rang out in the chamber declaring that Rabbi Eliezer was correct in his ruling.

Astonishingly, another sage, Rabbi Yehoshua, stood up and replied, “The Law is not in Heaven.”  Not only were the sages not swayed by Rabbi Eliezer’s demonstration, but the actually expelled him from the High Court.

The talmudic narrative goes on to record that the Almighty, upon hearing that the sages had disregarded the divine endorsement of Rabbi Eliezer, responded that, “My children have defeated Me.”

In other words, once G-d put the system in law in force for His people to follow, even He may not abrogate the dictates of that law.  For once the system of law becomes subject to exceptions, the system will no longer serve its function.

 

20121110-american-constitutionNevertheless, it must also be said that Senator Cruz was not completely off the mark.  If the President of the United States will not uphold the law of the land, if Supreme court justices usurp power over the constitution without the slightest legal pretense to justify their decision, if the Attorney General of the United States will not prosecute local officials or former cabinet officers who show contempt for the law they are sworn to uphold, then why should there be any objection to a county clerk standing up for the tenets of her own religion?

The answer is that wrong behavior does not excuse other wrong behavior.  When mutineers are doing their level best to scuttle the ship of state, when even the captain of the ship cannot be trusted to steer a clear and steady course, the solution is not for the crew to take up their hatchets and begin hacking away at the gunwales.

Ultimately, Kim Davis is just the latest symbol of the spreading disgust with politics as usual.  The real offenders are the highest officials in the land whose conduct promotes personal feelings over responsibility and accountability.  The effects of their civic negligence can be seen in the senseless violence on the streets of Ferguson and Baltimore, and in the surreal ascendancy of Donald Trump.

Personally, I applaud Kim Davis for her conviction and her principles.  But only when all of us — from the chief executive to the most humble civil servant — put respect for the law before our individual predilections, only then will we be able to restore a climate of common purpose to our fragmented society.