Why Jews Should Not Be Liberals Read online

  The county, various organizations, and homebuilders sued to prevent the federal government from maintaining these restrictive rules. They argued that the fly is not an article in interstate commerce and has nothing to do with interstate commerce. The Clinton administration replied that the fly does play a role in the nation's commerce, because it has been the subject of interstate trade among insect collectors. Sad to report is that the court of appeals upheld the federal position, because endangered species in total affect interstate commerce, and even though this fly was in only one state, Congress still had the power to take control of them. The last I heard this decision was on appeal to the Supreme Court, but it is doubtful if it will be heard there.

  As it stands, the fly has triumphed over a new hospital with all of the benefits and economic growth that would have accompanied its building. "And God created man in His own image" and gave man "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:27-28)

  The latest update on the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly is that it continues to cast a giant shadow over pending developments in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Although San Bernardino did finally negotiate a land-swap deal to permit the building of the Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, the county was forced to set aside ten acres for a "fly" zone. This set-aside now prevents the county from actively promoting the building of medical offices, pharmacies, and related businesses as additions to the hospital. Other projects, including a sports park and industrial parks, are either on hold or have been shuffled off to less desirable locations. However, all is not lost. The federal fish and wildlife agency has assured the county that the fly will be removed from the endangered list as soon as the population-the fly population, that is-reaches a sustainable level, hopefully by the 2020s.

  Is this not a perfect example of the craziness that has infected the body politic on this subject?

  As we now have lived through the year 2000, we can all agree that the predictions and conclusions of Simon and Kahn are far closer to reality today, than were the dire predictions of Global 2000. Today, we are debating the pros and cons of joining the world in agreeing to scale back our use of energy, so as to limit the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, and thus prevent further "warming" of the globe. Again, if we look at the Simon and Kahn analysis compared to the government report, we must think again about restricting our economic activity, and reducing our standard of living to bring about a result which may well be contrary to what we desire. Some experts predict that if this country were to implement the Kyota treaty, which would mandate a substantial decrease in energy production in the United States, the results would be catastrophic to our economy by scaling back much of our recent economic growth. Yet the prior liberal administration continued to push for this dangerous treaty's acceptance.

  Jewish tradition calls for the preservation of our natural resources to the best of our ability, while at the same time, honoring the law that people have the right to use their own property as they choose, subject only to certain community restrictions. Those restrictions were only those that were deemed paramount to the well-being of the community, and were limited to a select few. One could conclude that this entire area of preserving the environment, the wetlands, the endangered species, et al., should not be considered as another "exclusively" liberal position, nor can it be viewed as either a Jewish or conservative one. It is simply a subject that must be given the fullest exposure to debate of informed differences of opinion.

  Due consideration must be given to the rights of property owners and the economic fall-out from any restrictions placed on the use of that property. The weight of government power should be carefully husbanded and restricted to the most elementary and basic items. We need to be wary of those liberal environmentalists who claim a privileged position because of their alleged special knowledge or ability to foresee the future. No political party or philosophy has a monopoly on wanting the best environment for our citizens, but the methods of attaining those goals are open to honest differences.

  In the fall of year 2000, the unwelcome news appeared on the American scene that we were in some sort of energy crisis. Oil prices rose upward dramatically and this was reflected in gasoline prices at the pump of almost $2.00 per gallon. The liberals immediately pointed their accusing fingers at the giant oil companies, who they claimed were suddenly making obscene profits. (Profits naturally increased but this was a by-product of the increased cost as determined by the producers.) They also bewailed the fact that our "friends" in the Arab dominated Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) were not increasing their production sufficiently to reduce prices. At the same time, liberals continued to oppose expanding drilling for oil and gas in our own domestic territory. They would rather preserve our pristine environment for future unborn generations and suffer the consequences of depending on foreign oil, which could endanger our own security. Such is the mentality of liberals today.

  The facts are that this thinking does endanger the security of this country, as well as tending to harden world opinion against Israel. If we are so dependent on oil from the Middle East, then we must tread lightly in our dealings with those oil-producing countries, including many that remain Israel's enemies.

  It has been the actions of the liberal environmentalists during the past dozen years that have prevented the building of any new refineries, which are badly needed to increase the flow of gas and heating oil to consumers. They have also won the fight against building new nuclear plants, which have proven to be the safest source of energy throughout the world. The result of their actions is that in the past eight years, the Clinton years, the percentage of foreign oil that satisfies our domestic needs has increased from 40% to 60%, and the end is nowhere in sight.

  This entire argument that preserving the environment takes precedence over the needs and security of our citizens is completely contrary to Jewish tradition. "And God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26) There has to be a balance between preserving worthwhile portions of our natural environment and the needs of our people. I would rather disturb the migration patterns of some caribou in the Alaskan Wild Life Refuge and drill for oil there, as compared to groveling before the Arab sheiks to plead for additional production of their oil. In the process we jeopardize the security of Israel because of our dependence on staying in the good graces of the Arab potentates. I would also prefer to see a few more oil rigs in the ocean off of the California shore, which have turned out to be rather picturesque and are fine breeding areas for fish, than be dependent on foreign oil.

  The bottom line to all of this is that life consists of making choices. There is seldom a perfect answer. Judaism always stresses choosing the life of its people over any other alternative. In this important matter, it is hoped that American Jews will reconsider their support of restricting the expansion of our domestic sources of oil and gas. The security of both our country and of Israel may well depend on the decisions that we make.

  SOCIALISM, LIBERALISM,

  AND AMERICAN JEWS

  Recently my wife, Ellie, and I were discussing current politics with a younger, fairly close relative and her husband. Not only were they diehard liberals, but also together they joyfully proclaimed themselves to be socialists. Their solution to the world's hunger problems was to force Bill Gates to divest himself of his entire multi-billion dollar fortune and distribute his money to the poor and hungry of the world. When we responded that even if this could be accomplished, after a few days of feeding, or even a couple of months, then what would save the poor and hungry of the world from their miserable existence. Their only answer was to then take the next few billionaires in America and do the same to them, until we ran out of billionaires. Thus, in a couple
of magic strokes these two liberals would solve the age-old problem of hunger in this world. It is so easy to be a utopianist; it requires so little thinking and it's so liberal.

  Perhaps if they knew more about the historic link between socialism and anti-Semitism, being good Jews they might want to reconsider their position. We did not have time to tell that story then, but it is certainly worthy of reciting now.

  The link between Jews and socialism in modern times can be traced to the mass exodus that took place from Eastern Europe to the United States, beginning in 1881. Jews fleeing the tyranny of the czar followed the liberal cause, which was to liberate them from the ghettos. Liberal was a heroic term in Europe, and to break the czar's rule, socialism was the doctrine most often preached as the way to a better life. Probably most Jews accepting socialism really were not aware of the dictionary definition: "Control by the state of all means of production and economic activity." They knew only that anything was better than living under the czar, and socialism, with its veneer of brotherhood and charity and sharing, was appealing.

  When these Eastern European Jews came to this country, many joined the Socialist Party of America, along with organizations such as the Workers Circle. Many related socialism to the Talmudic tradition of communal provisions, ignoring the difference between voluntary sharing and giving under Judaism, and forced giving, sharing, and control under socialism. So perhaps at that time, around the turn of the twentieth century, it was understandable that there was a certain appeal to socialism. Socialism as a distinct party slowly faded away as the twentieth century progressed, reaching its high point under Norman Thomas. Thomas himself eventually ceased running for President of the United States in 1948, saying that the Democratic Party had now adopted all of his most important issues, so there was no longer a reason for a separate Socialist Party.

  What was apparently little known or publicized here during this period was the growth of anti-Semitism in Europe and its connection to socialism. Dr. Tyler Cowen, professor of economics at George Mason University, writing in Freeman in a January 1997, article titled, "The Socialist Roots of Modern anti-Semitism," traces this development. Cowen writes, "The socialist origins of modern anti-Semitism illustrate the link between statism and the persecution of minorities. AntiSemitism as a formal, intellectual movement arose in the middle of the nineteenth century, when Jewish conspiracy theories grew in popularity. German writers picked up on earlier anti-Enlightenment theories of a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy to rule the world." Eventually the Masonic side was dropped, and the focus was on the Jews. (This was around the time that the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was revived.)

  In 1879, the German writer Wilhelm Marr, is credited with coining the term "anti-Semitic." Marr expanded on the medieval attacks on Jewish traders and usurers and could not accept the economic success of Jews. Adolf Stocker's Christian Social Party (1878-1885) Joined Marr by combining Marr's religious approach with socialist economics. Jews were evil because of their religion (Christ killers) plus they were mostly capitalists, which was opposed to socialism. Georg Ritter von Schonerer followed in Austria with a similar anti-Semitic, anti-capitalistic platform in the 1880s. Schonerer became a hero to Adolph Hitler, who it is said, hung Schonerer's slogans over his bed.

  Professor Cowen writes, "The initial link between socialism and antiSemitism arose through intellectual affinity." Because European Jews, the Rothschilds in particular, were such prominent capitalists, "Many socialists considered anti-Semitism to be a way station on the path toward a more consistent socialist viewpoint." Karl Marx, a Jew by birth, continued the anti-Semitic attack with his writings. Marx and his followers believed that if the public could be persuaded to hate Jewish capitalists, they would eventually come to hate all capitalists. Elie Kedourie in his book, The Jewish World, wrote that Karl Marx thought the Jewish problem would disappear when capitalism disappeared since the Jew is the most striking version of a capitalist. Paul Johnson wrote in History of the Jews, "Socialism became the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals."

  Socialism has also had a profound influence on the State of Israel. In 1920, David Ben-Gurion believed Palestine, as it was then called, must be socialistic. He believed that the Jewish question could not be solved within a capitalistic framework. Ben-Gurion stated he had three principles: Jews return to the land; the language must be Hebrew; and the country must be socialistic. (Two out of three isn't bad.) It has only been the past twenty-five years, since Menachem Begin was elected prime minister and the Likud Party assumed control in 1977, that Israel has slowly but steadily, begun the difficult process of casting off the shackles of a socialistic economy, and adapting the free market concept. There still remains much to change, but with the tremendous growth of the Israeli economy in recent years, there appears to be little desire to go back to the old government controlled system.

  Socialism seemed to progress by pretending to be a liberal, revolutionary movement, freeing up the lives of its supporters, when in reality its basic doctrine is more state control over peoples' lives. The Nazi Party was known as the National Socialist Party. Communism in Russia was identified as the International Socialist Movement. It was no coincidence that the word "socialist" appears prominently in both of these totalitarian regimes, which together, practically decimated European Jewry. Still, there is little doubt that socialism continues to cast its enticing spell over many of our intellectuals today, some of whom have influential teaching positions in our leading universities.

  The irony of it all is as Kedourie writes, American Jews have long believed anti-Semitism was encouraged by the political right in America, with the right's alleged ignoring of the social problems of poverty, prejudice, and its alleged practice of discrimination against Jews in business. Only recently are American Jews discovering that many of our problems emanate from the left with its affluence, permissiveness, wishful thinking, and its substitute of secular liberalism for their own Jewish religion.

  What American Jews must always remember is that totalitarian regimes come to power by promising everything to everybody, and then remain in power through force and intimidation. And when things eventually go bad for them, there is always the need for a scapegoat, and who else fits that role but the Jew. Sidney Hook, a liberal for much of his life is quoted as saying, "I was guilty of judging capitalism by its operations and socialism by its hopes and aspirations; capitalism by its works and socialism by its literature." Winston Churchill wrote, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."

  I don't know whether our young relatives will eventually see the error of their thinking, or if they will ever read this writing. I hope they represent only a tiny minority of their generation of American Jews. Based on the beliefs of our own two adult children, who are strong conservative or libertarians, I tend to believe that the socialist theory of life is not making that much headway among the baby boomers in America. Certainly if one leans toward Judaism in practically any way, and if one does any studying of the history of socialism and its links to present day liberalism, one would have to reject following socialism in any of its forms.

  Beyond all of this there must be the realization that socialism, and its twin liberalism, by granting more and more power to the state, by looking to the state to solve all of our social, economic, and even personal problems, in effect makes the state the "God" whom all should worship. By elevating the state to this supreme position, socialism or liberalism by definition, does thereby demote the eternal and One God, to an inferior position. In so doing these philosophies defy the Second Commandment, when God thundered to Moses and the Israelites on Mt. Sinai, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

  THE 80/20 PRINCIPLE

  AND POLITICS

  After plowing through the preceding chapters which seem to paint conservatives as completely good, moral, and upright citizens, and liberals as arrogant, uninformed, and less than moral citizens, I do no
t wish to leave the reader with the impression that I believe the above to be 100% true and accurate in all cases. There are many exceptions to the general rule, and this certainly holds true for politics. As the Torah says, we are all a mixture of good and evil. The key is to accentuate the good and eliminate as much as possible the evil.

  President Ronald Reagan was fond of saying that if you were with him on 80%c of his positions that was good enough for him. The 80/20 principle was perhaps first discovered by the 16th century economist, Pareto, who determined that in any body of data, it is usually 20%0 of that data which produces 80% of the results. In many companies' sales staffs, it is frequently 20% of that staff that produces results comparable to that of the other 80%. Many businesses are now learning with the help of new computer programs, that 20% of their customer base is responsible for 80% of their sales, and so on. The point is that I do not expect any conservative to be 100% consistent with the conservative philosophy, and similarly I do not look for liberals to be 100% with their philosophy.

  (They may be on the right side of issues 20% of the time.) A current example of this that has just made the headlines as I complete this writing is the selection of Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut as the vice presidential running mate of Al Gore. This is the first time in the history of America that a Jew has been selected as a candidate for one of the top two elected positions in our government. I had referred to the senator in earlier pages as the one prominent Jewish politician who had at least stepped forward to condemn President Clinton's immoral behavior. I also noted, however, that when it came time to cast his vote to remove Clinton from office for lying under oath and obstructing justice, Lieberman backed off and voted against conviction.