Why Jews Should Not Be Liberals Page 16

  Sadly, it is the children of the least privileged that are most adversely impacted from the public school failures. There is a basic inconsistency in Jewish thinking that on the one hand Jews will support any welfare program to help those in financial need, but turn around and oppose a change in education policy that will greatly help the very children of those families receiving that financial support. If conservatives will now mimic liberals in their unwillingness to give up until they achieve victory on a particular issue, then eventually we will see competition enter the education field to the benefit of all children.

  Finally in late 2002, the Supreme Court upheld Cleveland, Ohio's school-choice program in its 5 to 4 decision in the Zelman v. SimmonsHarris case. The ruling that this program did not violate the dreaded religion/government mix because it gave the vouchers directly to the parents to be used as they decide would seem to open the way for expansion of similar programs in other cities and states.

  Another small victory for the educational-choice movement came early in 2004, with Congress's approval of a small 2,000-student voucher program open to low-income students in the District of Columbia. The Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation was a prime mover of this proposal. The vote in Congress produced some unusual supporters and opponents. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a Jewish Republican, voted against it. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, a Jewish Democrat who normally votes with liberal Democrats, supported the proposal. Senator Feinstein was also quoted as saying that she had finally reached the stage in her career where she could do the right thing without worrying about the political flak (another example of the "never give up" philosophy'?).

  JEWISH LIBERALS

  AND MORALITY

  Seldom does one read or hear Jewish leaders and rabbis extol their political liberal positions as somehow being connected with Jewish tradition when it comes to today's morality. Whether the subject is unlimited abortion, promiscuous behavior on the part of our leaders, posting the Ten Commandments in public places, use of TV and movies to depict the worst parts of human behavior, whatever the subject matter, the Jewish liberals are silent about any connection with Jewish tradition and their support for that behavior. Somehow the morality, or lack thereof, does not enter into their thinking. Their key question is whether or not it enhances the freedom of people to do what they want, regardless of how that squares with our traditional beliefs. Self-discipline is an outmoded practice. If it feels good and if it promises to do good so be it. As Judge Bork wrote, "What liberalism has moved away from are the constraints on personal liberty imposed by religion, morality, law, family and community."

  During the recent scandal regarding President Clinton and that nice Jewish girl, Monica Lewinsky, I do not recall ever reading any condemnation of Clinton's behavior by any prominent Jewish leader or rabbi. It was as if his behavior was somehow excusable because he was our president, and it was between consenting adults. Since when has this been the measuring stick as to whether behavior is moral or immoral? I had always thought that the Ten Commandments were our God-given guidelines for living a righteous life. Thou shall not commit adultery. Thou shall not lie or steal or worship false Gods.

  In The Essential Talmud, Adin Steinsaltz writes that no matter how smart or erudite a man may be, if his conduct is contemptible, he should be condemned and despised. The Talmud often stated that if learned people were of dubious character, they were frequently punished, chastised, or excommunicated. Instead of that, our president was able to boast after his non-conviction, that he had really upheld our Constitution by his defense of his actions and by escaping impeachment.

  The only voices I heard condemning his behavior were those of the Religious Right, those alleged bigots that the Jews are so fearful will convert our kids. As for the six Jewish members of the House committee investigating the impeachment process, I heard few if any words that described Clinton's behavior as immoral. Senator Joseph Lieberman, the only senator who is an Orthodox Jew, did make one public speech on the Senate floor that made the point that Clinton's conduct had been reprehensible and should be condemned. But that was it. Lieberman never followed through, and his vote not to remove Clinton from office was in line with his fellow Democratic Senators. Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows though. (In light of recent developments in August 2000, it appears that Lieberman's one speech helped him to obtain the vice presidential nomination on the Democratic ticket in the election of November 2000.)

  I can hear the defenders of the liberals cry out: "What about the Republican misdeeds?" Certainly Washington, DC is not the city of virtue we would like it to be. I hold no brief for any holder of public office whose behavior is not at least as moral as that of the average citizen. The point is that the American Jews are so one-sided in their approval of anything that their liberal leaders do and are so unanimous in criticizing the actions of Republicans.

  The 1993 Senate hearings to confirm Clarence Thomas as a Supreme Court justice are an outstanding example of this. Here the liberals had to walk a fine line. They had to be careful about alienating too many of their black followers, although many blacks did not like Thomas for his conservative views. At the same time they wanted desperately to defeat the nomination put forward by President George Bush. So they dragged Anita Hill out of obscurity, who had no more thought of attacking her former friend and mentor, Clarence Thomas, for sexual harassment than she had of running for president. Still the liberals managed to "refresh" Ms. Hill's memory sufficiently that she was able to accuse Thomas of saying the most naughty things to her some ten years previously.

  No, Mr. Thomas had never done anything physically to her; no, he had not dated her; no, he had not even propositioned her although they had been alone together on many occasions. Yes, he had been kind to her in helping to find her other positions after he had moved on in his career. But still the liberals chewed on every morsel and tidbit of possible scandal to try and block the nomination. Ms. Hill, of course, was duly rewarded for her performance, both financially and career-wise, and became somewhat of an icon for the feminist movement.

  Let us recount some of Judge Thomas' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991. "This is a circus. It is a national disgrace ... It is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that, unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you, you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree." Considering the long time political affinity between American Jews and American blacks, where were our Jewish Senators in the defense of Judge Thomas? Fortunately, Judge Thomas was narrowly confirmed to the Supreme Court, and is today generally regarded as either the best or second best justice on that court.

  Again the question is asked: Where were our Jewish leaders to defend the conduct and reputation of Clarence Thomas? Well of course, he was a Republican, a conservative, and he wasn't one of their black constituents, so they remained silent. Former Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire, a Jew, whose name resurfaced during John McCain's campaign for president in year 2000 as one of McCain's advisors, was quoted recently as saying the only reason he voted to confirm Thomas was because he believed Thomas' confirmation was already assured. If he had thought that his vote could defeat Thomas, then he would have so voted. A typical Jewish politician's thinking, even Jewish Republicans?

  Compare Thomas' alleged "bad deeds," which were unproven and unsubstantiated, with Clinton's real-life despicable conduct in the White House. Regardless of one's political affiliation, should not the pure morality of what is right and what is wrong lead those in Jewish leadership in this country to have spoken out in condemnation? The prophet Micah said, "It has been told thee oh man, what is good and what the Lord doth require of you, only to do justice and love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." It seems we Jews are overdoing the "mercy" part and overlooking the "justice" part when it comes to
judging the behavior of Democrats. Shubert Spero defines the principle of Justice in Judaism as "what is right or wrong for one person must be right or wrong for any similar person in similar circumstances." We are to treat all like cases alike. Just imagine how the liberals would have reacted if it had been a President Reagan or Bush who had confessed to doing what Clinton had done?

  Are Jewish liberals so afraid of protecting their political positions that they cannot be honest and truthful in stating what they believe to be right and wrong in these United States? Are they so concerned that they will be seen as "holier than thou" if they criticize Democratic politicians as well as Republicans? How can they ignore that most basic concept of our religion of fairly administering justice? Again this appears to be another example of the blind leading the blind; myopic Jewish leadership followed by equally visually impaired Jewish voters.

  In the previously quoted "Ten Principles For Reform Judaism," #3 reads in part, "Mindful of our own redemption from Egypt, we commit ourselves to help redeem the new century in modernity, striving to transform it into a realization of Israel's great messianic hope for the establishment of truth and justice, for moral and spiritual discipline, compassion and integrity, and at long last, a world repaired, a world at peace." When it comes to "truth and justice," in judging the conduct of liberal Democrats, our Jewish politicians seem to exhibit a strong case of convenient amnesia.

  I received a recent fundraising letter from Mr. Ira Glasser, undoubtedly Jewish, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). I probably received this letter because I am on some Jewish mailing lists, although I certainly have never supported the ACLU. The gist of Mr. Glasser's somewhat hysterical eight-page appeal for funds is that there is a "growing struggle between two competing visions of morality now taking place in America." What are these two competing visions? According to Mr. Glasser, they are "Individual freedom vs. Government authoritarianism." It is so ironic that Mr. Glasser has indeed described the struggle, but his definition of the players and who is on which side is 180 degrees off from reality.

  It seems Mr. Glasser and the ACLU are worried that the "New Puritans" want to use the police power of the state to control our actions in our bedrooms; and further, that people like Pat Robertson, Jesse Helms, William Bennett, and Dan Quayle want to measure the nation's morality by old fashioned standards. (What a horrible thought!) That is the "government authoritarianism" segment. What Mr. Glasser fails to mention is that all of these spokesmen happen to be strong, political conservatives whose main drives are to restore morality to America, to reduce the powers of government, and to expand the freedom of the individual citizen to act.

  The other vision, the "individual freedom" part that is under attack, is where people are not permitted to do what they choose.The ACLU is concerned that certain "individual" rights are in danger of being abridged. These include the right of schools not being free to omit nondenominational prayer at various ceremonies; of citizens not being allowed the right to burn and trash the American flag; of women not having unlimited abortion rights; and the right of homosexuals to set their own rules of conduct and not be held to the same moral standards as others. Some would describe these actions as "license" and not the typical freedoms from government interference that conservatives are championing. But these are the "freedoms" that the ACLU is worried may somehow be curtailed by the "New Puritans."

  Mr. Glasser is worried that the Christian Coalition and "other reactionary groups" are trying to get Congressional action to overrule federal and state court decisions, which have favored many of the ACLU's programs. In his recent book, Slouching Toward Gomorrah, Judge Robert Bork writes that one of the major factors in leading this country down the slippery road to immorality and loss of individual freedom has been the decisions of our courts. He believes that the courts in many cases, Roe vs. Wade, being a prime example, have overstepped their authority by taking powers away from the states and the people, and ceding them to the federal government. Mr. Glasser however, apparently welcomes the actions of the courts in achieving his goals, many of which could not have been enacted into law by Congress.

  This ACLU letter mentions not a word about the loss of our freedoms through our 40% tax rates, the restrictions on how we can use our property, the invasions of employers' rights via OSHA and the other enforcement agencies, etc. No, these are not the concerns of the ACLU. Their principle worry is that somehow, through the voluntary actions of the groups previously cited, the present trend of a 50% divorce rate and 60% of babies born out of wedlock will be reversed! (I assume Mr. Glasser, et al. will not be satisfied until those rates reach even higher levels.) Nowhere in the literature of the Religious Right or any so-called "reactionary group" is there a call for government controls on peoples' behavior. The only legislative goal of these groups is for a Constitutional Amendment to make abortions illegal. I don't agree with that position and I don't believe that it will ever become national law. The primary political thrust of the Religious Right remains that of reducing the powers of government to interfere in the lives of its citizens and for expanding the individual freedom of its citizens.

  To me, the most distressing aspect of Jewish leaders when they comment on political issues is that they make no attempt to relate their positions to their religious heritage. As Shubert Spero writes, "Morality is the essence of Judaism. It is the set of rules which prescribe the way people should behave, and principles which are good or desirable for men." Morality means doing what people instinctively know is the right thing to do. Morality is the chief demand made upon man by God. "Religious theories of morality are related somehow to God, and are based on the Ten Commandments." The last five of those Commandments-thou shall not murder, commit adultery, steal, lie or covet-could have been cited, at least in part, in condemning President Clinton's behavior.

  As more hooks are written and more facts come to light, to reveal the vast amount of lying and cover up that took place within the liberal establishment to protect this president, one would think that finally, some prominent Jewish spokesman would rise up to condemn that behavior. As of this writing, the collective amnesia continues to prevail. Perhaps once a new president is inaugurated, some will find the courage to step forward and fulfill that role.

  One spokesperson for upholding morality in one's life is radio talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger. For three hours every weekday, Dr. Laura, as she is known, tries to provide moral solutions to listeners' problems that they call in to discuss. The daughter of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother, Dr. Laura converted to Judaism many years ago. One of her latest books, The Ten Commandments: The Significance of God's Lcnrs in Everyday Life, written in conjunction with Rabbi Stewart Vogel of Temple Aliyah, Woodland Hills, California, discusses each of the Commandments, describes the principles contained therein, and relates them to the everyday decisions we are forced to make in our own lives. It is not difficult to connect the morality she advocates and preaches to political conservatism and not to liberalism. Although Dr. Laura continues to dispense valuable advice to her listeners, in August 2003 she backed away somewhat from living her life as an Orthodox Jew. While still maintaining her Jewishness, she seemed to distance herself from some of her previous beliefs. She has not offered any explanation for this change.

  Jews separate themselves from their essential Judaism when they fail to criticize those actions by our political leaders that are truly immoral. As Spero writes, "In Jewish view, morality is the bridge by which man reaches out to God. Values are divine. Morality is the fabric out of which man weaves for himself an ethical self and society achieves its redemptive goal." My hope is that someday this melding of Jewish tradition and political expression will take hold, and then will come about the meaningful change in Jewish voting.

  Many American Jewish leaders have been critical of recent Israeli leaders who attempted to draw a hard line when it came to dealing with Palestinian terrorists. There was liberal outcry when it was learned that the J
ewish treatment of Palestinian terrorists in jail was not up to our "normal" American standards. On the other hand our leaders have applauded the releasing from prison of hundreds of those same terrorists under the terms of the Oslo Agreement. The fact that Israel is fighting for its very existence, surrounded by hostile forces, seems to cut no ice with our virtuous American Jewish leaders. What is right is right, they proclaim, and if the results lead to disaster, well, at least their intentions were honorable. Such is the state of Jewish leadership and morality in these United States as we enter the new millennium!

  JEWS, LIBERALS, AND

  INDIVID UAL RESPONSIBILITY

  Throughout today's liberal philosophy there weaves the thread that says that the average American citizen does not have the brains, the temperament, or the common sense to make the decisions by which he and his family can live decent lives. Liberals will never come out and boldly make this statement, but behind almost all of their programs, one sees this philosophy. Because this is true, so think the liberals, our citizens must be protected from their mistakes, must be guarded against making foolish decisions, and of course, must be protected from programs that those big, bad conservatives advocate.

  Let us concentrate on the three major programs that are under reexamination at the turn of the twenty-first century which illustrate this point. These are budget surpluses, education reform, and Social Security.