Why Jews Should Not Be Liberals Read online

  It seems to me that this is part of the explanation of why Jews, who normally argue about most ideas and people (two Jews, three opinions), have come to accept liberalism as we know it today, as "the political cloak" they all must wear. To be a Jew who speaks up and disavows liberalism, even in the most conservative communities in America, is to risk wrath, insults, and isolation from their brethren. I know whereof I speak because I have lived that life for many years. It has been almost a lifelong search for a rabbi and a congregation where at least there was a reasonable division between the various political philosophies. Unfortunately, I have not been able to absorb and practice the Orthodox beliefs where I would have found more sympathetic political allies. Thus I have labored within the Jewish Reform and Conservative worlds for these many years, and I know how difficult it is to stand out.

  I heard Dennis Prager, the brilliant Jewish commentator in Los Angeles, say that coming from the Orthodox home where he was raised and where being a Jew meant being a Democrat, that it was more difficult for him to vote Republican than it was to eat ham! And yet he did finally change his political affiliation to Republican because he concluded that the Democratic Party no longer represented his core beliefs. I think that statement illustrates the point. Once the liberal philosophy took hold among the Jewish intelligentsia in this country, and once the Hebrew colleges began turning out social action-minded rabbis with apparently little attention paid to being at least politically neutral, the trend was established which continues to this day. Here and there pop up a few rebels, but they are so few and so muted that their influence is barely felt.

  One of my darkest memories was in the 1960s in California, when the rabbi at our local congregation told us on Yom Kippur that is was a sin for us Jews to vote in favor of a statewide proposition that would have protected the right of property owners to exercise their right to choose their own tenants. The aim was to open up more housing selection for minorities, a laudable goal. But no regard was paid to the rights of the property owners to use their buildings as they wanted to. Where the rabbi found his position in Jewish tradition, he never said. The message was simply that since this was a noteworthy goal, that it was fine to use the coercive powers of government to achieve that goal, regardless of the rights of the landlords. At that time the measure passed, but now with all of our fair housing laws, we have gone far beyond that modest provision. Incidentally, that rabbi in his later years seemed to be turning around in his reliance on the powers of government to achieve his goals and became more of an advocate for voluntary action to right the wrongs of the world.

  In his book, Who Needs God, Rabbi Harold Kushner writes that just as the civilized world had difficulty in accepting the findings of Copernicus and Galileo in the 1600s about the way the solar system works, the Christian Church could not bring itself to acknowledging that its treatment of the Jews was wrong. To admit that, Kushner wrote, would have been to destroy the entire framework of much of what they had believed and practiced for 1,500 years.

  It seems that this is similar to the situation that perhaps many Jewish liberals find themselves in today. They have swallowed the liberal line that forms the foundation of their political philosophy for so many years, that at this point in time to change would create a massive upheaval in their thought process. And the question they would have to ask themselves is why'? Why should they change their comfortable existence as a mainstream, politically correct thinking Jew, to become a person apart from the group? So what if they have been wrong all these years`? Who is going to notice, until many more of their co-religionists begin also to turn?

  This is the problem today of bringing about such a change. But change we must accomplish, both to preserve our Jewish traditions and to preserve the freedom and independence of these United States of America. For the American Jews, although small in number, exercise an influence on the body politic far beyond their numbers. A dramatic swing in the sentiments of prominent Jews in the business, entertainment, political, and religious worlds would bring about a profound change in the political make-up and philosophy of this nation, and all for the better.

  Can you imagine if Barbara Streisand, Steven Spielberg, Jerry Seinfeld, Robert Rubin, Michael Eisner, or even Ed Asner should somehow wake up one morning and proclaim themselves reconstituted political conservatives? The heavens would truly shake and the media would probably post this news on the back pages of the classified ad section. As much as I believe that celebrities in general have not devoted sufficient time to truly informing themselves on the great issues of the day, still it would be sweet if some of them should turn around their political faces. On the religious side who knows what the effect would be if some of our leaders in that field should suddenly announce their "conversion" to the politically conservative cause. What would it take to accomplish this?

  I had a recent experience in my own home area of Orange County, California. I challenged the twenty Orange County rabbis to comment on my argument that Jews everywhere, in particular our Jewish leaders, should be champions of the cause of school choice for parents. The reasons are fairly obvious. Without the necessity of supporting public schools with their tax dollars in addition to paying tuition to Jewish day schools, many Jewish parents would be able to afford to send their kids to the Jewish schools, both for a better education, and to make them better Jews.

  I wrote that I attended UCLA under the GI Bill and I could have chosen religious studies as my major, eventually perhaps becoming a rabbi myself. If that had happened, Orange County would have had at least one politically conservative rabbi, I said somewhat tongue in cheek. The editor of the local Jewish paper wrote back that there was one politically conservative rabbi in Orange County. He was even a prominent one, so the editor wrote, but he could not be revealed as such because "he is the spiritual leader of all his members." Apparently what is "sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander." All the years that I was paying my dues to temples led by liberal rabbis, were they representing my side? I don't think so. Incidentally, I am still waiting to read some responses to my challenge.

  One of my major hopes in writing this book is to incite some meaningful responses from rabbis and Jewish leaders and to invite them to argue their Jewish case for remaining political liberals. I am waiting to read or hear a Jewish liberal cite any Jewish law or tradition that supports his liberal positions on any subject. Any relevant Jewish law or tradition does not support much of what liberal Jews proclaim as Jewish positions. I recently heard one of the prominent liberal rabbis from New York insist on a cable news program that unlimited abortion was absolutely a traditional Jewish theme and was well documented in the Torah. When the interviewer expressed his astonishment at that statement and recounted that he had discussed this with Orthodox rabbis who made no such claim, the liberal ended the conversation by saying simply that "he knew" and that was that. This again appears to be an example of liberal Jews attempting to dominate the issues because they believe they represent the majority of American Jewish thinking. Perhaps they are correct in that assumption today, but that does not mean they should continue to go unchallenged. There is no question we need new leadership in the Jewish community, and the question is from where will this new leadership come?

  JEWISH LEADERSHIP

  In an effort to learn what factors have influenced the political thinking of prominent Jews, I recently mailed another brief letter to the twenty rabbis in Orange County, California, asking questions about where and how they have come to believe as they now do. Why are they liberals'? How did they become liberals'? What is the linkage between their politically liberal views, and Jewish laws and traditions'? The responses numbered three.

  One said he was a "pragmatist" meaning to me he had no particular philosophy or set of political principles. This sounded as if he would judge each episode or problem on its own merits without having an anchor of principles to direct that judgment. This would appear to be contrary to the basic tenets of Judaism, founded on the Ten Comma
ndments, which are not open to varying interpretations. Still he is a nice man who just hasn't been politically enlightened to see the link between Judaism and political conservatism.

  One rabbi said he was a liberal because that was the only group that truly cared about helping the poor and downtrodden. This is probably the same answer I would have received from most of the seventeen that did not answer. Somehow these religious leaders forget their religious training that teaches them that most human beings, liberals and conservatives alike, are similar in their basic desire to help those who are less fortunate than they are. Only the methods differ, but this is a huge difference. Apparently after years of indoctrination, however, this rabbi concluded that only his political group, the liberals, had the heart, desire, and ability to bring about the results he desired.

  The third rabbi who answered said to me verbally, "Hey, I'm no liberal; I believe in school vouchers, and eliminating welfare, and all the rest of the conservative agenda." When I recovered from my shock at hearing these answers, I asked, so what makes you so different from the other nineteen Orange County rabbis? His comments were enlightening. He said he had been educated in England, not in the United States. Although his father was now a rabbi in this country, he himself had not been exposed, as he put it, to the teachings of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. Instead he received a traditional Jewish education in England, where he studied for the rabbinate and was thus free to form his own opinions on the American political scene, as it relates to his religion. He had then come under the influence of some learned conservative thinkers in California and had become, if not a "true" conservative, at least a non-liberal thinker with a fairly open mind.

  Does this admittedly limited survey reflect part of the reason why American Jewish leadership has been so predominately politically liberal these past two generations? Is it the teachings of our rabbinical schools that are responsible for turning out these robotic, liberal theory espousing, Reform and Conservative rabbis'? This would appear to be the case. If there are Reform or Conservative rabbis who believe otherwise, they must be few and far between and they are certainly not given much publicity. I have written several letters to the Jewish Studies Institute, the school for Conservative rabbi students, and the Hebrew Union College, the school for Reform rabbi students, asking if perhaps they would consider adding this book to their study programs. Surprise, surprise, I have received no answers to date.

  Elliot Abrams in Faith or Fear states that the strategy of American Jewish leadership has been to downplay Jewish tradition in public life. He writes that Jewish leadership assumes that any expression of religious faith or association is dangerous to American Jewry, and as such it must be resisted. These leaders have taught that there is safety through secularism; integration rather than separatism; and life under the Constitution rather than the Torah. These views are exactly opposite to those of the Jewish Orthodox rabbis, who seem to glory in and emphasize their Jewish differences from modern society. Abrams explains that the thinking by Jewish liberals that a more religious society threatens Jews is founded in fear and Jewish history of persecution, and should be rejected and condemned by Jewish leaders.

  It appears to me that today, more respect is given to almost all Jews who openly proclaim their Jewishness. This is most noticeable in the political and sports fields. In Los Angeles there is still respect for the baseball pitcher, Sandy Koufax, who refused to pitch for the Los Angeles Dodgers in a World Series game when it fell on Yom Kippur. This happened back in the 1950s and is still well remembered. Most recently those same Dodgers acquired a young Jewish outfielder, Shawn Green. When Green was choosing among the teams he wished to play for, he is reported to have said that he wanted to play in a city where there was a large Jewish population. He also declined to play in an important Dodgers game that fell on Yom Kippur, September 2001. We hope that Green maintains this discipline with his new Arizona team.

  It is with some irony that several top executives in the Clinton administration were either Jews or were of Jewish heritage. Robert Rubin, William Cohen, Sandy Becker, and Madeleine Albright all served with Clinton during his two terms. Unfortunately for the premise of this book, none of them qualify as political conservatives, although Cohen is an identified Republican. He also however, does not practice as a Jew, nor does Ms. Albright, who apparently was not aware of her Jewish heritage until very recently.

  In August 2000, Democratic candidate for president, Al Gore, shocked the political world by selecting as his vice presidential running mate, none other than the previously referred to Orthodox Jewish senator from Connecticut, Joseph Lieberman. Although Gore and Lieberman were friends of long standing, the general consensus was that Lieberman was selected mainly because of his outstanding reputation as an "ethically pure" politician, which the Democrats were hopeful would help sanitize their ticket from the moral disrepute of being associated with President Clinton. Also, the fact that Lieberman was an Orthodox Jew apparently was not a negative for Gore. In fact, the hope was that this could prove to be a positive in swaying undecided Jewish voters to their ticket. Almost immediately upon being selected, the good senator began to back away from some of his more conservative, previously held positions on school vouchers, privatizing Social Security, affirmative action, and other issues. Perhaps this was part of the price to be paid by Lieberman to qualify as a national ticket candidate.

  The point is that the previously held strategy of Jewish leaders to downplay and minimize their Jewish religion is no longer a viable strategy. In fact it is almost a badge of honor as a public figure to now be identified as Jewish. In the 2004 Democratic presidential nominating process, several candidates "suddenly" discovered they had Jewish roots via a parent or grandparent. The leading candidate for a time, Vermont governor Howard Dean, is actually married to a Jewish woman who made no secret about her religion. The ultimate Democratic candidate for president, Sen. John Kerry, also disclosed that one of his grandparents had been Jewish. For a time, Senator Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, also led in the national polls, but his views were not radical enough to please the Democratic voters, and he soon gave up the struggle. The greater danger to the survival of the Jewish community in America today is assimilation. The more religious a country becomes, it would seem the more respected and honored are the various religions. As long as there is no government mandated control by one religion over the others, as long as one is not forced by government to financially support a particular religion, as Jefferson feared, and as long as there are no political restrictions on practicing one's religion as one chooses, then it would seem there is little for American Jews to be concerned about.

  Still when one searches for a single Jewish leader who reflects the political sentiments of American Jews, there appears to be no one. Nor is there any small group of prominent Jewish leaders that can be identified as representing the majority of American Jews. Instead, it seems to this observer that the liberal dogma is carried on through a number of channels. Certainly there is the group of American rabbis, Reform and Conservative, who spout the liberal line. There are the heads of the prominent Jewish organizations. Then there are the influential Jewish media personalities. But again there do not seem to be any outstanding Jewish commentators who are influential liberals. And of course we must not forget our prominent Jewish entertainers who constitute an almost monolithic bloc supporting the liberal line. (The amazingly astute Jackie Mason as perhaps the lone exception.) Does the preaching of these folk really have an influence on the average Jewish voter`? It is possible that in this age of TV and visual impressions, that the opinions of prominent personalities do have some effect on the leanings of many Jewish voters.

  Perhaps our Jewish liberal leaders belong to that special group of Americans that Thomas Sowell describes so well in his brilliant 1995 book, The Vision of the Anointed. These are the folks who consider themselves to be the intellectual and political elite of our time, who have the vision that must prevail over that of all lesser b
eings, the "benighted" as Sowell defines all of us lesser mortals, who do not possess that same vision. Those who may disagree with this privileged group are not just inferior thinkers, but in most cases, are mean-spirited if they do not agree with the prevailing visions of the anointed. Sowell writes, "People are never more sincere than when they assume their own moral superiority."

  For those of us who challenge this prevailing attitude of our Jewish leaders, we can identify with those words. How many times have we been accused of being "John Birchers" or worse, if we disagree with the liberal political positions of our leaders? It is not just that we are wrong, they say. Oh no, we are evil, cynical, hard-hearted, and mean people to differ with their pronouncements from "on high." Sowell quotes Joseph Epstein who wrote in a 1985 article, "Disagree with someone on the right and he is likely to think you obtuse, wrong, foolish, a dope. Disagree with someone on the left and he is more likely to think you selfish, a sellout, insensitive, possibly evil."

  I remember an episode back in 1966 when I was speaking to a Jewish group on behalf of Ronald Reagan in his successful campaign to become governor of California. I gave what I thought was a fairly good talk on why I was a Republican, why my belief in God as the rightful giver of our freedoms was in harmony with the Republican view on limiting the powers of the State, and why Reagan was the man for our time. A lady came up to me after my talk, ostensibly I assumed to congratulate me on my eloquence. Instead, she proceeded to castigate me for my views. How could I, a nice, young (at that time) Jewish boy, support such a reputed anti-Jew as "Dutch" Reagan?