Why Jews Should Not Be Liberals Read online

  Sometimes people think of conservatives as folks who protest against any change and seek to maintain their own privileged position in life. It is true that conservatism seeks to retain what is best in our society and opposes radical changes made simply for the sake of change. The primary emphasis of conservatism, however, is on the freedom and rights of the individual, along with the duties and responsibilities that accompany those freedoms. As it is often said, the other side of the freedom coin is responsibility. In this country, to preserve those individual rights, American conservatism looks to the American Constitution as the ultimate defender and protector of those rights. From this flows the conservatives' emphasis on limiting the powers of government, because it recognizes that the balance between individual freedom and the powers of government is similar to a seesaw balanced over a fulcrum. When one side goes up, the other side must go down. If individual freedom is to remain up then government power must stay down.

  In the early 1970s I became a member of Toastmasters, International and have remained active ever since. Toastmasters is a great organization, founded on principles of voluntary participation, a desire to improve one's communications skills, and a willingness to share ideas with your fellow members. I joined because this was one of the few forums open to me to express my politically conservative views, and where the audience had to sit and listen whether they agreed with me or not. I used to participate in speaking contests. In those days one could actually make a speech with a conservative political theme and sometimes win. In one of those contests that I did win, I wrote a definition of conservatism that still reflects my thinking of today.

  I wrote that a conservative is usually a person with a deep faith in God, with a belief that our basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are endowed by God, and that man cannot abridge these rights. The conservative believes that man is not blessed with all-powerful reasoning, and that solutions to most of our social problems can only be achieved on an individual basis. The conservative believes that man is both good and evil; that the real battle in life is fought between these forces within each one of us. That winning this fight does not depend solely on winning on the materialistic level, but more on the individual spiritual level. Contrary to popular thinking, the conservative actually has more faith in man's capacity to do good than does the liberal, because he relies more upon man's innate sense of charity and his willingness to personally help the underdog. And finally, the conservative knows that the free enterprise system (capitalism) is the only system that gives to man the freedom to make the decisions that enable him to achieve his individual goals.

  A more classic definition of conservatism that perhaps strikes closest to its roots is the one that follows by Russell Kirk, frequently described as the father of modern day conservatism. Kirk wrote in his memorable book The Conservative Mind, "The 20th Century conservative is concerned, first of all, for the regeneration of spirit and character-with the perennial problem of the inner order of the soul, the restoration of the ethical understanding, and the religious sanction upon which any life worth living is founded. This is conservatism at its highest."

  I think it is noteworthy that Kirk's definition, and my own modest one, both stress the spiritual nature of conservatism, which comes so much closer to the Jewish tradition than does anything contained in modern liberal literature. Professor Michael Wyschogrod, a prominent Orthodox intellectual, spoke at a symposium sponsored by the journal Judaism in spring, 1964: "Judaism has never been radical in the economic or political sense of that word. It has been a religion of law against anarchy, of reverence for the past and love for its traditions and heritage. It has always had a very realistic appraisal of what lurks in man and the necessity for social and political bounds within which responsible freedom is exercised... It is the radicalism of the last century that has been the aberration in Jewish history."

  There are undoubtedly many other definitions of conservatism that have been written, but let us content ourselves with these for the moment. Conservatives, simply put, have faith in the common sense of people to take actions that are in their own best interests and, given the appropriate information and education, they will do the right thing, both for themselves, their families, and their country, without having government force them to dance to the government's tune. We are all responsible for our own actions. We therefore are entitled to enjoy our victories and our pleasures and pay for our own mistakes and misfortunes. This is the essence of life, and government should be there only to serve as the honest referee to maintain and enforce the basic rules of honesty and decent conduct.

  Conservatives believe that capitalism, the free market, is the most moral system yet devised for the conduct of daily life and that there can be no morality without responsibility. This is certainly not a new idea. George Washington, who would probably be considered as a conservative by today's definition, in his farewell address to the American people upon completing his second term of office as our first president, said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."

  One of the problems that Jews, who tend to be impatient for immediate results, have with conservatism is that conservatism contains no quick answers to social problems. Conservatism is regarded as being negative because the primary thrust is to reduce government power and to rely on enlightened, self-interested individual action. Jews want to make an impact even when they abandon Jewish traditions, and thus liberals want to use the massive powers of government to try and achieve their goals quickly.

  As I strive to relate today's important political issues to what I believe are traditional Jewish beliefs and values, and to emphasize the link between conservatism and Judaism, it is incumbent to describe what I have learned those Jewish beliefs and values are as defined by some Jewish scholars. Shubert Spero in Morality, Halakha and the Jewish Tradition, defines Judaism as "the religion, beliefs and practices of the Jewish people in their fully developed and traditional forms as found after the major Halakhic codification of the sixteenth century and before modern attempts of liberalization in the modern period." Spero goes on to state that Morality, with a capital "M," is the essence of Judaism and is a set of rules that prescribe the way people should behave and principles that are good or desirable for men.

  There seems to be general agreement that the basic "constitution" of Judaism consists of the Torah, the Talmud, and the writings of the Prophets. Rabbi Daniel Lapin refers to the Bible as the "manufacturer's instruction manual" in his book Americas Real War. Thus when one seeks to portray himself as a spokesman for the Jewish people to justify a particular position on the current political issues of the day, it makes sense that he or she should refer to those basic sources. I don't see today's Jewish liberals doing this. In fact, seldom if ever is the Bible quoted as a reference for a particular liberal position. They would be hard-pressed to find one to justify their recent endorsement of same sex marriage! The only Jewish group that seems to be consistently politically conservative in their writings is the Orthodox minority. As Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab note in their 1994 book, Jews And The New American Scene, it is the Orthodox journalists that have "emphasized the complementarity of conservatism in religious matters and in politics."

  Professor Seymour Siegel, writing in an article back in the late 1960s titled "Jewish Social Ethics-Liberal Or Conservative," compared Judaism and the conservative philosophy. Dr. Siegel identified Judaism as including: suspicion of centralization of power; high valuation of law, tradition, and restraint; reluctance to support abrupt alterations of social fabric; a realistic appraisal of human nature and its limitations; and necessity for restraint and discipline. Dr. Siegel concluded that Judaism with its attachment to the unchanging law of God, which towers over collectivism and totalitarianism, is a profoundly conservative tradition. It is generally agreed that the core values of Judaism are education, morality, and tradition, and it is these values that I beli
eve American Jews should relate to in determining their political positions.

  One of my goals in writing this book is to stimulate further discussion and writings on this subject. I certainly don't pretend to be the final authority on behalf of Judaism. But I hope that the leaders of Jewish life in America-the rabbis, the heads of the major Jewish institutions, Jews who are prominent in the media and the arts, and all politically active Jewish liberals-will begin to question whether they are being true to their faith when they make their political pronouncements on the issues of the day.

  Now as to my caveats, this writing is not intended to define who is a Jew, or to reconcile the various Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, and Orthodox segments of today's American Judaism. Professor Ernest van den Haag, writing in his 1969 book, The Jewish Mystique, asks the question as to what makes a Jew? He answers that perhaps more than anything else, it is a man's feeling that, like it or not, he is Jewish and that is what makes him a Jew. If you are a Jew, you should know it; if you choose to ignore your heritage and birthright, you do so at your own peril. My hope is that Jews of all denominations will eventually work together for their common goals. I do believe, however, that the basic and unalterable principles of what it is to be a Jew are accepted by all of the various segments of Judaism. These are detailed in a later chapter.

  This book is also not intended to be an all-encompassing history of Judaism in America, or to describe in detail the various immigration waves of Jews into America. There is an enormous library full of this detail. I refer to this movement at times only to help explain how we got ourselves into the political pickle we are in today.

  Finally, as mentioned above, this writing cannot be an allencompassing report and reference to the many various writers who have written in far more detail and knowledge about one or more of the subjects herein. In this respect I am merely a transmitter of some of their more relevant comments on the main subject matter of this book. On this concept of transmission, I am indebted to Herman Wouk's latest book, The Will to Live On, published in 2000, for his quotation from Confucius: "I am not an originator but a transmitter."

  My main purpose is to present in one writing an analysis, an explanation, an argument, as to why the vast majority of American Jews have been for the past sixty-five years predominantly in favor of the liberal, Democratic Party and its policies, and why that stance is almost 100% contrary to Jewish law and tradition as I understand it. Perhaps most importantly, I hope to explain why it is finally time for American Jews to reverse their political stance, and why that reversal is so critical to the future of this country, and perhaps to the future of Judaism in America. I want this writing to be one that any Jew, regardless of his or her political persuasion, can pick up, read or scan, and then wonder if perhaps we American Jews have been following a false political philosophy as espoused by "unenlightened" Jewish leaders for lo, these many years. After all, our history is replete with episodes of following leaders who in the end proved to be false messiahs.

  As we briefly defined conservatism, it is now appropriate to define what I mean as Democrat or liberal politics in today's atmosphere. The definition of a liberal has changed through the years. For much of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it meant one who sought liberation from the tyranny of the czar or the rulers of a country. As late as the 1960s, Random House Dictionary defined a liberal as "one who is open-minded, tolerant, free from prejudice, generous, charitable, and advocating maximum individual freedom for all, as guaranteed by government." This definition is closest to what we now understand was that of a "classical liberal," but certainly does not define today's modern liberals.

  Since then, definitions have changed. For at least these past two generations, to be a Democrat liberal means that you have great confidence in the powers of government, preferably at the federal level, to solve all of our social, economic, and at times personal problems. To put it in identifiable terms, we all know that Teddy Kennedy is a liberal. Whenever he takes a position on an issue, we can be confident it will be to support some form of government action or coercion to achieve his goals. In other words, he typifies the liberal position. Sometimes liberalism can also be compared to what the Supreme Court once said about pornography. There may not be a precise definition of same, but we all know it when we see it. Irving Kristol in Two Cheers for Capitalism wrote, "A liberal is one who says that it's all right for an 18-year old girl to perform in a pornographic movie as long as she gets paid the minimum wage.

  We know that liberals believe people are all basically good, that if they do bad things, it is only because they were either abused as children, or that society has given them a bad break, and that some government grant of money or preference will solve their problems. People are really not accountable for their actions, say the liberals, there must be some outside force that creates the great disparity in income and achievement. Therefore we must mold and shape society to remedy the ills that have befallen all of those unfortunates that have not yet achieved the proper standard of living in these prosperous United States of America.

  Liberals also believe that those of us who have achieved some success in our lives must then be called upon to sacrifice to aid those who have achieved less. And if we will not act according to their wishes, well then to use government power to force those actions is the only remaining course to take. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, a Democrat, wrote on 14 May 1969 in the New York Post, "Somehow liberals have been unable to acquire from birth what conservatives seem to be endowed with at birth; namely, a healthy skepticism of the powers of government to do good."

  Judge Robert Bork makes the point in Slouching Towards Gomorrah, published in 1996, that modern liberalism stresses equality of outcomes rather than opportunities, otherwise known as radical egalitarianism. In order to achieve that goal, some have to be punished or held back, and some have to be pushed along. There's not much freedom there. Along with that principle, and somewhat in contradiction to it, is the evil twin of radical reduction of limits to personal gratification, or unlimited freedom, or if it feels good, just do it. Judge Bork goes on to write that these radical politics have become a substitute for religion to the detriment of our society.

  Liberals either do not know what our Constitution says about limiting the powers granted to the federal government, or they simply choose to ignore what it says. Any and all problems are fair game for liberals to try and solve with new laws. Behind most of their philosophy lies the dirty little secret. Liberals believe they are smarter and wiser than most, that the average American citizen does not possess the brains or ability to make necessary decisions about his money or his life, and therefore, it is an absolute requirement for liberals to pass laws and implement them in such a way that citizens will receive what liberals know they should receive.

  At the core of today's liberal philosophy is the concept that naked force should be used to accomplish whatever they believe to be in the best interests of those they seek to help. I cannot think of one liberalsponsored program that seeks to reduce the coercive powers of government. Force is what is required to make people act (in their own best interests, of course). Whether it is higher taxes, or tighter regulations, or restrictions on how one can use one's property, liberals cannot resort to pure persuasion to win their arguments. No, the force of government must be used, regardless of whether that force is sanctioned by our Constitution. It is pure arrogance that drives liberals. Justice Louis Brandeis, our first Jewish Supreme Court justice wrote in 1928, "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

  There now has arisen what many people consider to be an additional defining characteristic of today's liberal philosophy. This is the concerted drive to remove God, or any mention of God, or exposure to any of God's commandments, from our daily lives. Whether it is to prevent the display of the Ten Commandments in public places, or the denial of a sports team to pray openly for th
eir success, or to deny parents the option of sending their children to religious schools using some type of tax credit, or to prevent the teaching of creation in the public schools, or any one of another of many "anti-God" positions, liberals seem intent on completely secularizing our society.

  Of course, there are still some leaders from the religious left that pass the liberal litmus test. Jesse Jackson, the National Council of Churches, and Al Sharpton are among the privileged folks who are permitted to use the holy name on behalf of liberal causes. Other than these chosen few, liberals seem to pronounce a plague on all others. Another notable exception has been Senator Lieberman, the Democrat VP nominee of the 2000 election, who frequently invoked God's name in blessing him with the VP spot. I'm sure that if liberals thought they could get the support from the American public to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, they would. Obviously I have not given liberals enough credit for their perseverance on a subject, as witness the recent court challenge to the "under God" statement in the Pledge. It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court, led by four liberals, will continue on its path to remove God from our daily lives. It might be more difficult to revise some of our cherished documents including the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, the Star Spangled Banner, all of which contain references to God. To quote Judge Bork again, "Modern liberalism is hostile to religious conservatism of any denomination."

  To sum up the main difference between today's liberals and conservatives, I will quote the pithy words of my own dear wife, Ellie. She defines a liberal as one who wants to do good with someone else's money; and a conservative as one who prefers that you do good with your own hard-earned money.

  If one wishes to read no further, perhaps the essence of this writing for American Jews is this. If we want to help the poor and unfortunate, if we want to bring more justice and mercy into the world, if we truly want to brighten the lives of the millions that we do not know personally, then the way to do it is not the way of socialism, or modern-day liberalism. This Robin Hood variety philosophy is to take from the "rich" and give to the "poor." And if the civil rights of the "givers" are trampled in the process, and if the "takers" come to expect this largess as their rightful inheritance, so what'? The end justifies the means, doesn't it'? The problem is that this system simply does not work, never has, never will, and cannot achieve its stated purposes. Most importantly, it goes contrary to one of Judaism's basic tenets, that of justice, which means equal application of the laws without respect of persons. "Justice, justice, thou shalt follow that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." (Deuteronomy 16:20)