Why Jews Should Not Be Liberals Read online

  The disgraceful actions of the liberals, and their leader President Clinton, in reluctantly supporting the needed reform of our welfare laws, illustrates where the American Jewish majority has been so wrong these past two generations, in their unyielding support of these spirit stiffing, ineffective, government programs. Still the liberals refuse to abandon their positions. One of the few times that the liberal Democrats criticized President Clinton was when he knuckled under to conservative pressures and signed the Welfare Reform Act of 1996.

  Yet the liberals fight on, still maintaining that the Reform Act was a mistake, in spite of the fact that the welfare rolls were cut in half by the year 200). Liberals are great proponents of improving the self-esteem of our children. They seem to ignore the fact that the greatest boost to one's self-esteem is to know how to read and write, to have the ability to think and solve problems, to have a job and become self- supporting. By discouraging the attempts of honest citizens to get off of welfare these past thirty-five years, and by limiting their opportunities to learn a craft or trade, liberals have once again demonstrated the law of unintended consequences. The results have been contrary to what was hoped for and in the process many lives have been destroyed.

  If American Jews had been true to their tradition, and remembered that we have always hated welfare dependence, and that one should do almost anything to earn a wage, they would have long ago insisted that the welfare laws be changed. Instead, they meekly succumbed to the blandishments of their liberal leaders that somehow the system would eventually work, which it never did. Has anything been learned by our Jewish leaders from this welfare program disaster? It is doubtful if this example has changed many minds.

  One of the traits of liberalism that is so difficult to overcome is their enduring ability to continue battling to achieve their goals. No matter how poor the results from their previous programs, liberals always seem to come up with new angles to justify continuing, and even expanding, their big government programs. Even today, after several years of successful welfare reform, I am sure there are many liberals who are still thinking deep in their hearts, "If only we had given the old programs a few more years, and spent a few more trillion dollars, I know they would have worked." To permanently kill a bad liberal program is tantamount to trying to slay the proverbial dragon. One has to drive a stake through its heart to achieve a meaningful change.

  EDUCATION,

  THE LIBERAL INFLUENCE

  From the time of the mass immigration of Jews to the United States, beginning in the 1880s, there has been a continuous Jewish belief in the wonderful benefits of education. First, it was education to learn the English language by the early arrivals. Then it was the push to educate their children so they could aspire to the higher professions, and finally as the progress of the second and third generations here proved, there was the incontrovertible evidence that it was the public education system that was largely responsible for our success in climbing the rungs of the ladder of economic success. And until around the 1960s, this was true.

  When I went to public school in Chicago in the 1940s, we did receive a reasonably sound education in the basics. We were even taught American history in those days, which is a frequently neglected subject today. We respected our teachers, we paid attention in class or else, and we accepted the discipline of our school administrators, few in number in those days, without question. School was where it was at, and for almost all of us, it was the public school. The only exceptions to the public school in those days were those "secret" Catholic schools, which always seemed to turn out tough, competitive athletes. By and large though, we liked our schools, and there was practically non-existent antagonism between the races. There were no sex education classes and the only symptom of sex that emerged was comments about the goodlooking girls' gym instructor.

  I attended a junior college in Chicago that was two-thirds black, with never a problem. Our basketball team was integrated and our teamwork was excellent. At the school dances, each race danced with others of their own race with scarcely a thought given to doing anything different. Of course this was before the Great Society proclaimed its programs of racial equality. Admittedly, there were problems lurking beneath the surface, but the point is that in those days education was the great equalizer for all those who attended public school. Those who aspired to go on to college took certain courses in high school. Most students in those days had no hope of doing this, and we tended to take those courses that would enable us to get a job. Trade schools flourished and it was no disgrace to attend those schools because this was frequently a ticket to getting a good job.

  Then after World War II, came the GI Bill of Rights, perhaps the only government program that truly succeeded in accomplishing the goals it was designed to accomplish. By rewarding those who had served in the military during and after the war, millions of us were given the privilege of attending a college or university of our choice, with the taxpayers of America footing most of the bills. Whether we chose a Catholic school, such as Notre Dame, or a state university like UCLA, or a private college or university, each recipient was given the same benefits, tuition, and $65 per month for expenses. This program resulted in the first truly educated class of citizens in this country that would not have otherwise been able to enjoy a higher education.

  In today's world, public education is fighting for its life to retain its privileged system. There is no nefarious scheme afoot to downgrade this once lauded institution. It is simply that like any monopoly, it eventually contains the seeds of its own destruction. A monopoly, by definition, has no competition. This condition is endurable so long as the monopoly produces the results that the public expects. Witness the long tenure of AT&T and the utility industries. Although these companies are now facing the rigors of competition, somewhat surprising to many observers, the results are proving to be beneficial to the public.

  With public education, the emergence of powerful teachers' unions seems to coincide with the decline in the success of the public education system. Whether it has been the rise of teachers' unions, or the decline in public morality, or the increase in fatherless children, there are any number of causes that have created a situation in which teachers are afraid to teach and where the test results of our students place them almost in last place among the world's industrialized nations.

  William Bennett, the author of The Book of Virtues, wrote in 1993, "In 1940, teachers were asked what they regarded as the three major problems in American schools. They identified the three major problems as: Littering, noise, and chewing gum. Teachers last year were asked what the three major problems in American schools were, and they defined them as: Rape, assault, and suicide." This would seem to graphically describe the changes that have taken place in public education during this fifty-year span.

  Many writers have analyzed this subject, but what is the bottom line? The bottom line is that changes are needed and not just around the margin. More money is spent today per student than ever before, but still the results are disappointing. The answer appears almost obvious. Competition is what has made this country's economy surge, along with the freedom of citizens to pursue their entrepreneurial instincts. So why won't this approach work in education?

  The liberal mentality today is that we need to "mend it" and not "end it." But they stop short of really using competition to "mend it." Instead they cannot seem to come further than to expand the choice of which public school to attend, and to increase slowly the number of charter schools, which have a good record to date of improving the education product. When one suggests giving parents the freedom to use their own tax dollars to send their kids to schools of their choice, be they public or private, the education establishment led by their liberal leaders, and most Jewish organizations, rise up and cry out that this would be the death of public education. If this change would really result in this demise, one could say that they had it coming. If history is any example, however, public education will not die, but will improve
because of competition.

  As most of America continues to apparently ignore the miserable results of the public education monopoly, logic would dictate that eventually many will advocate a drastic change in our entire system of education for our young people. Why should a system similar to our successful World War II GI Bill of Rights be so opposed for our grammar school kids'? One reason is that it would dilute the power of the unions and their political allies in controlling this vital activity. The purpose of teachers' unions today seems to be to protect their members from any penalties for poor performance, and if the children's education suffers, that is a minor factor. Where are our Jewish leaders in this critical fight?

  The American Jewish Committee is among the leaders in challenging the right of Florida to begin a very modest "freedom to choose your school" program. In California in 1993, Jewish leaders led the opposition to a modest voucher program for grammar schools. The incredulous aspect of this for Jews is that the record is clear that when Jewish kids attend Jewish day schools, they end up marrying other Jews almost without exception. Besides that, they score well above those attending public schools. While most Jewish leaders moan and groan about the 50% rate of inter-marriage of American Jews, when presented with the opportunity to expand the number and attendance of Jewish day schools because now Jewish parents could afford to send their kids there, these leaders back away, and cover their heads with their blankets of ignorance. They are still living in the past of the 1940s when public schools were doing a fine job of educating us, and when the intermarriage rate of Jews was negligible.

  Professor Jack Wertheimer, in a December 1999, article in Commentary, writes of the success of today's Jewish day schools. There are now over 200,000 pupils in 700 Jewish elementary, junior high, and high schools in this country. Mostly Orthodox, there are a growing number of day schools affiliated with other branches of American Judaism. Test scores of day school students are routinely higher than their public school counterparts. Wertheimer writes, "Their alumni are far more likely than others to observe a range of rituals and holidays, to contribute to Jewish causes and institutions, and to maintain a strong attachment to Israel. Most impressive, perhaps, is the finding that graduates of day schools are considerably more inclined to wed other Jews."

  The one common problem Jewish day schools have is financial, and here the Jewish leadership is largely absent, and in fact, consistently oppose any form of a "GI Bill" for elementary and high school students. This contrasts with the support that the Catholic Church gives to its extensive system of schools, estimated to exceed five billion dollars annually.

  Although a task force of American Jewish leaders did proclaim in 1995 that Jewish day schools were "arguably the most impactful single weapon in our arsenal for educating Jewish children and youth," there has been little follow-through to champion the cause of Jewish day schools by that Jewish leadership.

  The main reason that Jewish leaders and rabbis are not leading the fight to expand school choice which will permit more Jewish parents to finance attending Jewish day schools for their kids, is that the current liberal doctrine is dominated by the various teachers' unions, both nationally and in my home state of California. Ironically, many individual teachers would be far ahead of where they are now if there were competition for their services between public and private schools. If the teachers' unions really had the best interests of their members at heart, one would think they would encourage the expansion of additional teaching opportunities. The better teachers would be paid a premium, while the average or inferior teachers would still be able to work, perhaps not at the comfortable wages they now receive due to the coercive power of the union, but still working somewhere. Even those teachers would still have the incentive of improving their abilities so as to advance to the premium levels of compensation. Today's salary structure for teachers in our public schools pays no attention to relative ability, but rather is structured to reward longevity and the number of advanced degrees one has. And of course, there is the dreaded policy of tenure, which makes it practically impossible to terminate incompetent teachers.

  Beyond all of this however, is the main point that our children would be receiving far better schooling than they receive today in many school districts under the public school monopoly. The liberal Democrats seek vainly to work around the edges of the existing system, voting more money and smaller classrooms, with little noticeable effect. Until a dramatic change is made in the system to permit and encourage competition, no real long lasting improvements will be achieved. And where are the rabbis, the teachers of our Jewish heritage in this struggle'? Not where they should be, at least where I live!

  In today's America, it is the political conservatives and libertarians who are championing the right of parents to choose the schools their children will attend. They are joined by those groups who are otherwise Democratic voters-the minority blacks and Hispanics-who also want to send their kids to the best schools they can regardless of where they are located and regardless of whether or not they are religious schools. If there ever were a time for the Jews to unite behind a change in our system to permit and encourage this freedom to choose, it is now! But to do that, they must pierce at least a fragment of their liberal cloak, and open their eyes to the situation that exists today.

  One recent answer to the demand for a change in education choice is the Children's Scholarship Fund, started with $100,000,000 donation from Theodore Forstmann, a Jewish Republican, and John Walton, a non-Jewish, non-Republican. In early 1999, the fund had attracted an additional $70,000,000. They then announced that they were offering scholarships to every single low-income family in the United States. These were not full scholarships. The parents with an average annual income of less than $22,000 still had to contribute on average $1,000 every year for four years. And it must be noted that these scholarships were to pay for tuition to send your kid to a grammar school different from the public school now being attended, and that different school included religious and other private schools.

  The response was amazing. The fund received requests from 1.25 million families for these partial scholarships. Over 60,000 scholarships have now been awarded, and plans are in place to expand and continue the fund in the future. All of the arguments by the public school advocates were used to oppose the fund. It would destroy the public schools, it would siphon off the best students leaving only the dregs in public school, the poor and minority parents would be incapable of making good decisions when it came to their children's education, etc. Mr. Forstmann replied in the September 1999 issue of Imprimis (published by Hillsdale College), that these arguments not only underestimated America's struggling families, but that they ignored the central value that makes America great. That value is freedom and the ability of ordinary citizens to make the best decisions for themselves and their families. Forstmann stressed the point that only through competition will the public schools improve, and only when choice is fully implemented throughout the country will we see a truly uplifted education for these mostly underprivileged children.

  Certainly the concept that competition brings out the best for all concerned is not new. In his profound work, Morality, Halakha and the Jewish Tradition, Shubert Spero quotes a statement from the Talmud: "Elementary teachers cannot complain that their source of livelihood is being impaired by an influx of teachers from another town, because of the principle that Competition among the scribes increases wisdom." Oh how we wish some of that ancient wisdom could permeate through the thick hides of today's teachers unions!

  In the Soncino Press second edition of the Pentateuch and Haftorahs, in the additional Deuteronomy notes, the aim of Jewish education is described. It was to consecrate the Jewish child to Judaism, and was to contain four elements. One was to teach the Jewish religion, the Jewish beliefs about God, the Torah, and Israel. Second was the teaching of the Hebrew language, Israel's historic language, and the key to truly learning the heart of Judaism. Third was the learning of the sacred
scriptures, going beyond the Pentateuch. "It is these truths, enshrined not only in Bible history, but in prophecy, psalm, proverb and moral discourse, that are of transcendent worth to the spiritual development of the child." Fourth was the teaching of Jewish history, the outstanding events and personalities of every age in Jewish history. Only one who learns our history and the contributions Jews have made to the progress of humankind can fully appreciate the value of our religion. Jewish kids are not going to learn this in public schools.

  So does it not make sense that our Jewish leaders should champion the ways that more Jewish families could send their children to Jewish schools to absorb this type of learning? Only if families are relieved of at least part of the burden of supporting both the public schools and the private schools of their choice will this come about. Education plays such a prominent part in Jewish tradition that any changes to improve it should take the highest priority with our Jewish leadership. After all, we are the "people of the Book."

  In the "Ten Principles For Reform Judaism, a Draft Proposal," as published in Reform Judaism Winter 1998, principle 6 reads in part, "Thus we renew our classic devotion to `chinuch,' to Jewish education, some of us sending our children to Jewish day schools, others to supplementary schools, but all striving to participate actively in our children's Jewish schooling." I don't know whether that draft was finally adapted as the official Reform position, but the concept has certainly not penetrated the Jewish leadership of the powerful teachers unions.

  Jewish tradition is based on freedom of choice. The freedom to worship as we choose has been at the heart of our 4,0(0)-year history. The main reason we have endured the persecution from the Christian authorities during those years was because we were not willing to abandon our choice of the "One God," to accept another. The fact that the Jewish leaders and their unions opposed the right of parents to choose the best schools for their children is inconsistent with our Jewish principles and traditions of true justice. To accept the liberal argument that to solve the dilemma of the public schools, we simply need to throw more billions of taxpayer dollars at the problem, almost falls within the definition of insanity. That is when you keep doing the same thing to solve a problem, but expect different results.