Why Jews Should Not Be Liberals Read online

  IMPORTANCE OF JEWS CHANGING

  THEIR POLITICAL POSITIONS

  Before going on to discuss other political issues that illustrate the difference between the liberal position and Jewish tradition, it is now appropriate to spell out why this writer believes it is so important that this change occur now. It is not a matter of favoring one political party over another because one side contains more honorable people than the other. It is primarily because the principles supported by one party are so much closer to Jewish tradition and Judaism that is the deciding and determining factor. We have the history of the past seventy years to see what the slavish support by American Jews of liberalism has resulted in, and now a change is required.

  The Jewish population in America is shrinking. As detailed in Elliot Abrams 1997 hook, Faith Or Fear, Jews now are 2% of the population in America, down from 3.7%. The majority of Jews marrying since 1985 have married non-Jews. In the late 1980s, there were approximately 5.7 million Jews in America, but the prediction is that given current trends, that number will decline to 4.7 million by 2020.

  The current Jewish leadership position against encouraging Jewish education through expanding Jewish day schools via some type of voucher program, works to continue the trend to marry outside of the Jewish religion. The division of opinion on the Oslo peace process in Israel has tended to soften and dilute that once strong, unified position that seemed to bring American Jews together in support of that tiny land, and to keep enthusiasm for Judaism alive. The great Jewish novelist, Herman Wouk, in his latest hook, The Will To Live On, expresses his hope that the resurgence of American Jewish life for the long future is in "a massive return to our sources in faith, literature, and history." I get the feeling in reading this book that if we would all become Orthodox, observe the Sabbath and the Commandments, and live our lives as truly observant Jews, our future would be secured.

  Unfortunately, that is probably not going to happen. Almost 80% of American Jews are Reform and Conservative, about evenly divided between these two branches, with just 8% Orthodox and 13% unaffiliated. There are too many distractions in our lives along with the lack of interest and required commitment that keep us as Jews of various varieties, but certainly, not very observant. We can only hope that soon Jewish education for our children in religious schools via various voucher programs will be expanded so that they will grow up and marry other Jews, remain more dedicated to our religion, and bring up their children accordingly. I personally believe that this is the most hopeful prospect on our horizon today, along with the preservation of the State of Israel in its present form, to stop and reverse the shrinking of our American Jewish population.

  My secondary hope and a primary reason for this writing, is that if we can persuade a significant number of non-Orthodox Jews to change their political beliefs, and turn from being liberals to becoming conservative or libertarians, this in itself could help bring about at least a minor renaissance in the lives of the American Jewish population. If American Jews can be made to see that their individual interests plus their desire to improve the world are better served through changing, and equally important, if they can see that in so changing, they are actually coming closer to Jewish tradition so that Judaism becomes more meaningful in their own lives, we will kill two birds with one stone.

  When one considers the importance in so many fields of activity that Jews are prominent in, if such a change should occur, the repercussions of that change would be tremendous. In the major media alone, Jews are prominent in all phases-newspapers, radio, television, cable, the movies, the theatre, and now the Internet economy. Almost without exception these Jews are liberals who promote and distribute the liberal political messages. If there should be a change here with, at the minimum, neutrality between the two major ideologies, this would be very meaningful. Most people are getting their news from television. If equal time were given to reporting the non-liberal positions, there would be a gradual recognition of the values that conservatives are trying to espouse.

  Instead of looking to government for answers to our social problems, the emphasis would turn to what the private sector could do and what people acting alone and through their organizations could accomplish, as was the case before the 1930s. Most Americans today, according to recent newspaper reports, believe that it is the private sector and not government that has been responsible for and should be given credit for the great economic boom of the 1990s. Thus there is already a drift away from the liberal notion that we owe all good things to the actions of government.

  For too long American Jews have voted their emotions, rather than using their intellect and their knowledge of Jewish tradition to guide them. Just as the Information Age has now overtaken the Machine Age and changed the way we do things, so now is it time for Jews to change their political thinking. Paul Johnson writes that the growth of United States Jewry in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries was as important in Jewish history as the creation of the State of Israel. It gave Jews a role in shaping policies here, a role that we have not enjoyed at any other time. We need to use our influence now to help promulgate those Jewish values such as honesty, morality, and individual responsibility for the benefit of all Americans.

  American Jews cannot decide the destiny of Israel. We can only support those forces there that we believe will act wisely in the best interests of preserving that precious state. Here in America however, we do have more direct power to influence events, even though we are less than 3% of the population. As Hans Kung writes, quantitatively, the Jews are negligible, but as a religion, they are a great power. We can also be a great power though our influence in the media and its effect on public opinion. We thus have a responsibility to lead this country back to its moral and spiritual roots, and this is not where modern liberalism is taking us.

  Once Jews become convinced that their own religion contains many of the answers needed to solve our most pressing social and political problems, then perhaps their interest in Judaism and the desire to practice it more traditionally would take hold. In one sense, this approach may be tackling the problem of assimilation through the back door, but so what'? If this political change would arouse in the minds of today's nonobservant, politically liberal Jews, an interest in studying the Torah and the Talmud, to find out for themselves the link between Judaism and conservatism or libertarianism (and not to liberalism), then in this case, the ends justify the means. Emerson said the end pre-exists within the means. Here, the means used for this desirable end are definitely within the bounds of honorable, good intentions.

  Important changes have occurred more than once in Jewish history. The coming of Reform Judaism in America, as exemplified by the Pittsburgh platform in 1885, was just such a change. Johnson writes that Reform rejected the old rules on diet, purity, denied return to Zion, and changed messianism to a struggle for truth, justice, and righteousness. Some of those changes are now being modified and even reversed, but the point is that significant changes are not new to Judaism. On an individual basis, our first Jewish Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis (1856-1941), evolved or changed from being a nonobservant Jew, to believing and saying that to be a good American, Jews must become better Jews, and then become Zionists.

  In order to bring about this change in political thinking, I believe there must be a full airing of what liberalism is as it exists today, and as to why that dominant philosophy is truly not in harmony with Jewish tradition and law. More examples beyond what are contained in this brief writing must be developed. There are a meaningful number of politically conservative Jewish writers who can, I am sure, add weight and substance to this effort to relate how Judaism and political conservatism are truly linked.

  I have quoted extensively from Dennis Prager, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, and Elliott Abrams. I have read Michael Medved, Mona Charen, Norman Podhoretz, Bruce Herschensohn, and Don Feder to name a few whom I would hope expand their own writings on this particular subject. It is worth repeating that Lipset and Raab ha
d reported in their book, Jews And The New American Scene, it has been the Orthodox writers who have emphasized the close relationship of conservatism between religious matters and politics. What is needed now is to enlarge the circle of writers who will also echo this theme.

  Beyond these notable personalities, who else will be the logical conveyors of this thinking? It is going to have to be the Jewish leaders in each community who first become convinced that political change is needed and then embark on a crusade to spread their knowledge to the circles of people they can influence. I am hopeful many Reform and Conservative rabbis will be involved, but I do not hold out much hope that they will be in the vanguard. I believe rather, that the early advocates could well be the leaders of Jewish federations, Jews who are active politically, and perhaps some media personalities. To accomplish this the word must go forth that this is truly an important undertaking, deserving of a substantial contribution of time and effort by those involved.

  At the core of Judaism as I understand it, is this undying, unquenchable, undefeatable, indefatigable thirst for individual freedom: The freedom to worship, to live, to carry on with our lives as we as individuals choose, guided always by the Commandments given to us by our God. This is what our 4,000-year history says to me. We have often strayed from the path that leads to God's desired results. I believe that Jews following the political liberal philosophy here in America these past two generations represents such a straying from the desired path, to the detriment of our religion and our nation.

  Now is the time to wrench ourselves back on the right path to fulfill God's Commandments that we be a light unto all the people of the world, and to once again bring God's message of ethical monotheism and individual freedom to our fellow Americans. By doing this, we will save this blessed land from the creeping collectivism that is slowly and steadily enfolding us, and at the same time spark a renewal and resurgence in our interest and love for our own Jewish religion. God does not ask that we succeed, only that we try. What more noble cause could one pursue?

  OTHER ISSUES

  At this point we have detailed more than a dozen significant reasons why American Jews should cast off their politically liberal cloaks and begin to vote other than liberal. Whatever Jews want to accomplish politicallyhelping the less fortunate, keeping their kids from being converted to other religions or to no religion at all, universal peace and freedom, universal healthcare to all-this writing attempts to show them that these desirable ends can only be brought about through a change in their political thinking. Being liberal and voting for liberals simply is not going to cut it!

  The question may now be asked, are there some current issues where the liberal position is somehow in harmony with Jewish law and tradition`? Let us try to answer this question by briefly discussing an area that liberals have made one of their top priorities when it comes to passing new and expanding existing laws. This is the area of keeping our air clean, our water pure, our endangered species alive, and the preservation of as many of our irreplaceable national parks and forests as possible. Toward that end there has been enacted a host of federal laws, all endowed with noteworthy titles: The Clean Air Act; The Clean Water Act; The Tidelands Act; The Endangered Species Act. These laws, which are intended to regulate and punish certain behavior on the part of American citizens and businesses, have undoubtedly made some progress in achieving their goals. Whether on balance they have done more good than harm, and whether their restrictions on individual freedoms are leading to more and more control over our ability to live our lives as we choose, is left open for future debate. The question remains, are these laws in harmony with Jewish law and tradition or do they fall outside of that structure?

  There is also the new scary specter of global warming that warns us that if we do not somehow reduce the amount of carbon hydrates released into the atmosphere, in less than a century the ice caps will melt and we will be inundated with rising oceans of water that will surge beyond their present banks. Do all of these forecasted doom and gloom scenarios mean that we must use the fearsome powers of government to restrict human activity and human freedom from those actions which are deemed harmful and which are allegedly bringing about those unpleasant results?

  I doubt that at the time of this writing, even our wisest of men have definitive answers to those questions. There is great disagreement among the most prominent of scientists the world over as to what are the causes for global warming, how permanent are the changes affecting it, and even whether or not the warming will be good or bad for our civilization. There is too much we do not know about our universe and the many elements that affect our environment for we as citizens of this country or any country to pass laws and use the force of government to pick a definite direction upon which to embark.

  For example, if one wishes to see how inaccurate predictions of future disaster can be, I refer to The Resourceful Earth written by the late Julian Simon and the late Herman Kahn in 1984. In 500+ pages these two men, both Jews, along with about two dozen expert contributors, analyzed the Global 2000 Report to the President, published in 1980, and determined that almost without exception, the conclusions reached in that weighty report were wrong, based on the evidence known at that time. And now that we have reached and passed year 2000, Simon and Kahn are proven even more correct than they were when they wrote their book in 1984. I hope that somewhere in the spirit world these two mental giants are having great laughs to see how far off those "other experts" were when they predicted doom and gloom.

  In their executive summary, Simon and Kahn highlighted their differences. The Global 2000 report, prepared by the best experts, both government and non-government, that then President Jimmy Carter could assemble, was given wide circulation, high priority by the administration, and undoubtedly influenced the thinking of legislators in the passing of additional restrictive legislation.

  In brief, Global 2000, as summarized in The Resourceful Earth stated: "If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption than the world we live in now. Serious stresses involving population, resources, and environment are clearly visible ahead. Despite greater material output, the world's people will be poorer in many ways than they are today. For hundreds of millions of the desperately poor, the outlook for food and other necessities of life will be no better. For many it will be worse. Barring revolutionary advances in technology, life for most people on earth will be more precarious in 2000 than it is now unless the nations of the world act decisively to alter current trends." If this is not "gloom and doom" I don't know what is.

  Simon and Kahn, and their experts, in analyzing Global 2000, arrived at completely different conclusions. They used the same sentence structure as Global 2000, but changed some key words and phrases: "If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be less crowded (though more populated), less polluted, more stable ecologically, and less vulnerable to resource supply disruption than the world we live in now. Stresses involving population, resources, and environment will be less in the future than now... The world's people will be richer in most ways than they are today... The outlook for food and other necessities of life will be better... Life for most people on earth will be less precarious economically than it is now."

  An abbreviated summary of the main points cited by Simon and Kahn to support their conclusions included:

  1. Life expectancy has been rising rapidly throughout the world, a sign of demographic, scientific, and economic success.

  2. The birth rate in less developed countries has been falling substantially during the past two decades.

  3. Many people are still hungry, but the food supply has been improving since at least World War II.

  4. Trends in world forests are not worrying.

  5. There is no statistical evidence for rapid loss of species in the next two decades.

  6. Water does not pose a problem of physical scarcity or disappearance.

&nb
sp; 7. The climate does not show signs of unusual and threatening changes.

  Simon and Kahn found that the main assumption for the gloomy Global 2000 predictions was that there would be a declining growth in the rate of increase in per person productivity. Apparently the government experts gave little thought to the coming explosion in productivity brought on by the computer revolution, which was visible in 1980. As recently as June 2000, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan somewhat reluctantly concluded that the productivity improvements brought about by the computer age are real and permanent.

  As for the predicted species loss, which is at the foundation for our endangered species laws, Simon and Kahn make the point that the idea of saving every species, regardless of cost, is unreasonable. By preserving certain species, we prevent the incubation of new species, a renewal cycle that has been happening since the beginning of time. There have been a number of incredible decisions to save certain species that negatively impact business expansion and the creation of new jobs.

  The story of the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly is worth telling. This is a fly, about an inch long, with a half-inch long proboscis for sipping nectar. This insect appears for only a few weeks every August. For the rest of its two-year lifespan, it lives as a larva in the sand. At present it lives exclusively within an eight-mile radius in Southern California. It became listed as an endangered species in 1993, just as San Bernardino County broke ground for a $487 million dollar hospital. The county agreed to move its site to preserve the sandy habitat, but federal officials insisted that there needed to be a "100 foot-wide fly corridor" in case the fly wanted to cruise into new territory.