Why Jews Should Not Be Liberals Page 14

  Is it not time that Jews began to change the criterion by which we distinguish our "friends" from our enemies'? The time is past for automatically labeling as enemies those who may have a different position from the Jewish leadership on abortion, gun control, same sex marriage, and all the other "hot button" issues currently in vogue among the Jewish liberals. These issues do not go to the core of what Judaism is all about.

  The real tests of friendship should ask who is in favor of restoring morality in this nation; who supports the restoration of the family as the centerpiece of our society; who supports the expansion of individual freedom within those moral limits; who is urging the Arabs to make the concessions they promised to make in the Oslo agreements; who is backing Israel in its retention of its vital territories; who supports bringing competition into the education arena? These are the types of issues that should be used by American Jews in deciding who our real friends are.

  It is simply not enough to rely on our prior emotional links to the failed policies of modern liberalism when we pick our political friends. We need to stand back and analyze with fresh eyes which people and policies come closest to our traditional Jewish principles. And even if we find that our "new friends" are among those groups who would previously not have merited a second look from us because of old biases, we must welcome them as allies in our struggle to identify where we should be voting as informed American Jews, who cherish freedom above all values.

  LIBERALS, THE JEWISH FAMILY,

  AND ABORTION

  There is little disagreement that the family and its importance to the Jewish tradition are among the strongest elements of Judaism. "God said unto our Jewish patriarchs, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it..." (Genesis 1:28) The nuclear family, with father, mother, and children, has always been in the Jewish tradition. Why is it then that liberals seem to be on the side of those programs and policies that have as their inevitable result the breakdown and deterioration of the family`?

  I refer to the high taxes of today which in many cases force mothers to enter the workforce to the detriment of the raising of her children. The advocacy of unlimited abortion at the choice of the woman, regardless of need, has resulted in many divisions within the Jewish family structure. The striving for material well being at the cost of neglecting the spiritual side of family life leads frequently to unhappiness with the present state of affairs. The opposition to freedom of choice for education means that many a Jewish family cannot afford to send their children to Jewish day schools, where the teachings of Jewish tradition and laws would be emphasized. The all-enveloping welfare programs have led to the deterioration of the traditional family and to the massive increase in babies born out of wedlock

  The liberal appeal to class envy, and an attack on the wealthy and the entrepreneur-the prime movers of our economy-frequently results in a clash between those people and the groups that could benefit the most from expanded economic activity. All of these and more seem to result in an increasing divorce rate, and the all too often breakup and estrangement of Jewish families from their tradition. These sometimes "well meaning" but ultimately destructive programs are all liberalsponsored ideas, frequently championed by Jews prominent in politics, religion, and business.

  We cannot recreate the past, but from personal experience, the past was frequently more conducive to a stronger family life than is today's more economically advanced society. When my wife and I married, over fifty years ago, out of a salary of $231 a month I netted about $210. There was practically no income tax and very little went to Social Security. Out of that $210, we were able to pay our rent, groceries, and other necessities. My wife took on a part time job for a time, but that ended when I rejoined the navy during the Korean War, and she accompanied me to a tour of duty on Guam. After a brief stint working in the Eisenhower/Nixon campaign of 1952, she did not choose to rejoin the workforce until our children were grown teenagers.

  The fact is that taxes then were such a minimum burden that we could use the great majority of my earnings for our own needs. Today, when taxes in all their varieties scoop up almost 40% of the average family's income, it becomes necessary for wives to bring home their share. (I read in the Talmud that one should not give away more than 20% of one's income. I take that as meaning taxes, including tithing, should not exceed 20% of our total income according to Jewish tradition.) In today's business world, with the expansion of the economy, many wives are bringing home half of the total family income.

  One would ask, is that all bad`? Women today have many careers open to them that were not available back when we were newlyweds. Women are certainly as capable as men to achieve success in many fields, and more power to them. I personally have believed for many years that women were the untapped resource of America. Women are more intuitive in their management skills and can frequently prevent problems from mushrooming. Women are succeeding in the professions to a greater extent than ever thought possible. In my own profession of accounting, I understand that more than one half of new CPAs today are women.

  Having said all of that, the point is that today it is no longer a voluntary choice for many families to have the wife and mother work. To live in the style that many people desire, and to pay the onerous amount of taxes-income, payroll, sales, property, etc.-it is a necessity for wives to work. Yet if given their choice, many young women would prefer to stay home and raise their families without the burden of doing double duty by working and doing their household chores. A recent survey showed that over 65% of working married women would prefer to stay at home. So how can that be blamed on the liberals'?

  Simply this, by advocating and promoting an increasingly powerful federal government to solve the world's problems, both real and invented, this inadvertent or perhaps purposeful philosophy creates a tax and regulatory structure that siphons away too much of our hard-earned income and deprives us of too many of our individual liberties. All of that is against Jewish tradition where women were the family educators, the solid foundation of the Jewish family. Today many women are simply regarded as "equals" to the man of the house with the frequent result being that they do not receive the care and respect and love they are otherwise entitled to. If the Jewish sponsorship of equal rights and pay for women could result in more women being able to stay home and raise their children, that would be wonderful. But for many reasons this is not the result that can be obtained through passing arbitrary laws regarding compensation.

  The entire equal rights movement would seem to be contrary to what Jewish laws seek as the role for women. In the notes to Deuteronomy in the Soncino Pentateuch, women are to be the helpmate of man. "A wife is a man's other self..." Only through marriage can man's needs be directed to holy ends. Scripture says, "A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife," (not the other way) because the woman is the stronger, the ethical and spiritual superior of man. Instead of trying to forcefully equate women with men in the economic world, we should be paying more attention to making it possible for women to fulfill their primary role in life as wives, mothers, and teachers of their children.

  When it comes to abortion, and the "right to choose," the major Jewish organizations, including Hadassah, have been prominent advocates for the "pro-choice" abortion rights movement. Where in Jewish tradition does this come from? In the readings that I have done, plus talking to various rabbis, there is nothing in Judaism to support this movement. Although Jewish tradition does not regard abortion as murder, it is a practice that is discouraged and is considered to be a sin. At best, during the first forty days of pregnancy, an argument is made by some Jewish scholars that the soul has not yet entered the body of the fetus, and therefore, an abortion during that period does not carry the same condemnation as those performed at a later period. There is also today some evidence that brain waves and heartbeats do not commence until roughly forty days have passed since inception, which would tend to support the prior statement.

  In the Tim
e magazine issue of 11 November 2002, there appeared a series of remarkable photographs showing an embryo (or fetus) through its ninemonth development to a full-grown baby. The picture of the embryo at fortytwo days showed its size at eleven millimeters, with the description that it was now developing a sense of smell, nerve endings, heart, liver, hindbrain, midbrain, and other features. This would seem to fortify our ancient rabbis' theory on the forty-day period when abortion may be tolerated.

  An interesting proposal to deal with abortion on a moral basis was put forth by Professor James Q. Wilson, professor at UCLA, in an article written in Commentary, January 1994. Professor Wilson' position is that abortion is a moral question, and should not be left to the judges of the Supreme Court to determine our national posture. Instead he urges more voluntary actions based on increased knowledge of what the fetus actually appears to be during the gestation period.

  Wilson describes the appearance of the fetus during the first ten weeks of pregnancy, based on actual photographs, and concludes that not until the seventh week, do distinctly human arms and legs become evident. At that time also the eyes and eyelids become visible. In the eighth week, even though the fetus is still only 1 1/2 or 2 inches long, the fingers and the genital organs, unsexed, have appeared. By the tenth week, the fetal face has a clearly human appearance. The photographs in the Time article confirm Wilson's statements.

  Wilson goes on to propose that before women agree to have an abortion, they should be shown pictures of just what that fetus looks like in their bodies. When one comes face to face with a creature that looks like a tiny creature, the hope is that many abortions would never take place. Probably some of this is done now in certain clinics, but certainly, if more exposure and publicity were given to this approach, progress would be made. All of this could be accomplished without government interference of any kind, but before such changes could really take hold, the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision would have to be reversed.

  The problem with that decision is that it overrode all state and local abortion laws, and instead mandated one supreme position for the entire country. That court majority not only prevented any state from restricting abortions during the first trimester, but even during the second trimester, the state could regulate abortions only to protect the mother's health. In the final trimester when the fetus was viable, the state was given the option of regulation unless the mother's health or life was at risk. This latter restriction was soon negated when "health" was defined as "wellbeing" with the result that only now in year 2000, is the court to decide if states can regulate abortions during the final trimester. The Supreme Court's latest ruling is that the individual states do not have that right, given the supremacy of the Roe v. Wade decision.

  Wilson's argument that abortion is a moral question should certainly have provoked discussion on the part of our Jewish establishment. If morality is at the heart of our religion, what subject could have been more ripe for Jewish debate" Yet I have heard more than one Reform rabbi pronounce that Judaism is four square in favor of unlimited abortion, and that is that! No reference to the Torah is given; simply that the woman's right to choose is somehow heavenly ordained.

  How is it that the entire liberal position, as portrayed in the Jewish supported liberal Democratic Party, is so uniformly in support of unlimited abortion? And to compound the sin, the Democrats criticize the debate that rages within the Republican Party over the correct political position to take on this subject. At least the Republicans have a difference of opinion, whereas the liberal Democrats, led of course by their Jewish component, have no split opinion. If you are a liberal, that's it. You must safeguard this precious "right to choose." But beware, don't be consistent and parlay this right of freedom of choice to the freedom to choose one's school for your children. No, that would be the wrong use of the taxpayers' money, and heaven forbid if that choice of school for your children should result in their attending a school where religious principles were taught. Such hypocrisy is certainly not in the Jewish tradition.

  Hadassah, the Jewish women's organization that performs many very worthwhile services throughout the world, and proclaims their strong allegiance to Israel, lists as one of its bedrock positions, the "right of women to choose abortion on demand." I have yet to read in any of their publications any Jewish law or tradition on which they base their position on abortion. The closest they have come is to quote Moses Maimonides to the effect that the fetus should not be supported if it is a danger to the health of the mother. This is a real "stretch" to include this as a Jewish tradition when the great majority of pregnancies do not endanger the health of the mother. It is rather this "unholy freedom" of women to control the functions of their own bodies that seems to serve as the foundation for their policy. The Jewish emphasis on the importance of children seems to be ignored. Here again the Soncino notes are appropriate to quote: "Judaism proclaimed the Biblical view that the child was the highest of human treasures." "O Lord God, what wilt Thou give me, seeing that I go childless?" was Abraham's agonizing cry. "In little children, it was taught, God gives humanity a chance to make good its mistakes. They are `the Messiahs of mankind,' `the perennial regenerative force in humanity.'" One would think that of all peoples in this world, Jews should be champions of the right of the unborn to be horn.

  Abortion is a divisive issue. I have Republican friends who believe it is the most important issue of the day. I don't agree with them. I also don't agree that we can legislate a real solution to the problem. But it should not be the issue of the day. Abortions have been taking place since the beginning of the human experience. Roe v. Wade was a mistake to make this a federal matter whereas previously, it had been a state or local issue. It is a moral decision for women and their mates to make. If more attention were paid to the experience of women who have had abortions and the lasting mental distress they frequently feel, perhaps there would be a drastic reduction in the number of abortions performed in this country.

  There is no earthly reason, religious or political, that this should be a Jewish liberal bedrock position. There is plenty of room for honest disagreement. I am sure there are many American Jews who do not agree with unlimited abortion, but they appear to be silent in the face of the almost uniform position of the major Jewish organizations. As the previously quoted Dennis Prager has said with which I agree, he is prochoice, but anti-abortion.

  No one will doubt that the Jews have been among the leaders in America to push for a more expansive welfare program for those in need. One of the main attractions of FDR in the 1930s was his advocacy of all of the New Deal programs. Certainly a case could be made that in the depths of the Depression of the 1930s, there was a need for some type of government help for those out of work and hungry. This was somewhat in the Jewish tradition. But that help was to be of a temporary nature and was preferably the kind that could help the breadwinners attain a marketable skill.

  Unfortunately, the nature of government programs is to take on a life of their own. As these programs grow and expand, the waste and excessive overhead costs that accompany those programs expands. The main problem with government (one-size-fits-all) programs is that there are too many individual differences to be solved by one allencompassing program. There soon develops a corps of government workers whose jobs and careers depend on enlarging and perpetuating those ineffective programs. Lost somewhere in the bowels of those wellmeaning statutes is the purpose for which they were created.

  Thus there are formed three powerful constituencies: the politicians who appear to be the benefactors of the poor; the bureaucrats who work in implementing and expanding the programs; and of course, the recipients of the benefits. Unseen are those hard-working citizens whose taxes are paying for all of those wondrous programs. Opposition is quickly overcome, and our welfare programs expand and continue without pause. Negligible positive results are glossed over. It is only important that we are doing the "right" thing, and for Jews, we are fulfilling our basic charitable drive. />
  How have these welfare programs affected the American family, the institution most important to Jewish life? They have been an unmitigated disaster. We have spawned an entire generation of fatherless youths who have grown up largely without a man in the house, and who now must be tamed and civilized by society at large. Does anyone really doubt that the welfare programs-this five trillion dollar monstrosity-has not done serious harm to the structure of our family life? And still the liberal fights tooth and nail to prevent any wind down of those programs.

  Prior to the onset of the New Deal, black families were largely two parent families, with few out of wedlock births, as contrasted to today's picture where over 60% of black babies are born out of wedlock. Only after President Clinton's chief advisor, Dick Morris, persuaded him that he would not be reelected in 1996 if he continued to resist, did Clinton sign on to the Republican sponsored Welfare Reform Act, which appears to be working in drastically reducing the numbers of those who had been on welfare in some cases for generations. The latest report shows a 50% reduction in the number of people on welfare since 1996.

  The problem with liberals, as Thomas Sowell points out, is they believe that human behavior can be modified by adjusting the underlying social conditions so that people will begin to do the right things and not continue to engage in self-destructive behavior. It is not that easy to change behavior. We simply do not know all the answers. Still the "anointed," as Sowell describes them, believe they do know all the answers, that ordinary people are irrational or immoral, and they need to be led to the good life. Shubert Spero reminds his fellow Jews that the "severest vice was pride, haughtiness or arrogance." It is the arrogance of liberals that they think they know what is best for all, that should alert Jews to the falseness of that philosophy.