Why Jews Should Not Be Liberals Page 5

  As to whether Jews should feel guilty about their success in America, the answer is why should they'? Jews have not profited by government programs. Most of their success has been of the bootstrap variety. Yet there beats within the core of many Jews a feeling that if they have it so good, it is not quite fair for others not to share the same blessings. Since we were oppressed for so many centuries, we empathize with the poor in America as perhaps no other group does. If this can be called "guilt," so be it. What does our Jewish tradition say about this'?

  Judaism is a religion of optimism, so writes Rabbi David de Sola Pool in his 1957 book, Why I Am A Jew? One of Judaism's basic creeds is to bring about the golden age, the Messianic era, when all will accept the one God. This belief requires that we can remake the world through positive action. We must enjoy life and try to improve it. We are to do this by exercising our free will to defeat the temptations of sin, suppress the evil inclination, and choose the good and the moral way of life. With his inborn goodness, man must be the architect of his own life. So where does guilt enter into all of this? Apparently it doesn't!

  Perhaps it is the deep feeling that we in America, the descendants of those courageous Jews who left their homelands to come to America, are so much more fortunate than those left behind that we really don't deserve all of our blessings, and that we have not earned what we have compared to our aunts and uncles and brothers and sisters who did not make it here. When we read of the Holocaust, see and listen to the stories of the survivors, perhaps we are correct in feeling a little guilt in our good fortune. But should that then lead us to advocate and support the use of the coercive power of government to try and solve the problems of the poor and less fortunate here in America, a position that is contrary to the fundamental teachings of Judaism that believes that to become, we must overcome? It was the very concentration of government power in Germany that made it possible for Hitler to do what he did.

  It is ironic that so many of our Jewish leaders are vociferous and adamant about the need to keep government out of any religious choice or the establishment, heaven forbid, of a government-sponsored religion, and rightly so. But when it comes to using that same dangerous government power to achieve their social purposes, suddenly government takes on a whole new benevolent image. This may come as a shock to those Jewish leaders, but that same benevolent government is fully capable of jailing you and yours if you don't pay your taxes, if you violate the endangered species laws, or if you should be so unlucky as to have water on your property and inadvertently dry it up and violate the wetlands laws. Government is naked power and its reach must be severely limited.

  The rise to prominence and prosperity in America of most Jews has been without the benefit of massive government assistance. In fact, it can be argued that the very absence of such programs forced our ancestors and us to pursue our careers pretty much on our own. Not that we lacked help from our families, friends, religious supporters and, in my own case, the GI Bill of Rights after World War II. But by and large we did it on our own. We were able to accomplish whatever we have accomplished because the system of free enterprise in America permits anyone to achieve what he or she truly wants to achieve without a coercive government or state-sponsored religion denying us the ability and freedom to take the necessary actions to accomplish our goals. And equally important, our religion did not single us out either for favors or government-sponsored discrimination.

  Milton Friedman, the outstanding Jewish economist, was quoted in the Libertarian Party News, June 1999, as saying, "The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another."

  As a further benefit to American Jews, as Rabbi Lapin wrote in his book, Americas Real War, it has been through the grace of the Christian leaders of this country, going back to our founding fathers with their benevolent feeling toward the Jews as enshrined in our Constitution, that enabled Jews to assume their full place as citizens in this new land, the same as all others. How different this was from our fate as Jews in Europe.

  The fact remains that in spite of this position of economic well-being in America, Jews continue to be political liberals, marching in lockstep, with our black brothers who are on the other end of the economic ladder, in a seemingly unbreakable link of overwhelming Democratic support. Logic would dictate that Jews would be backing positions that would in some degree differ from those of the black community, who seek more and more government assistance and favoritism. If there is one word that most Jews abhor, it is "quotas." Yet when it comes to affirmative action, both on the job and in the educational system, Jews seemingly forget the problems we have had in the past with this hated word, and throw ourselves into the struggle to support quotas for other minorities. Again, is this our guilt overcoming our better instincts?

  The irony of our support of affirmative action, more accurately described as "race preference" is that there is increasing proof that all of the favoritism and quotas for minorities do more harm than good for those same minorities. Black writers such as Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Walter Williams, and others continue to decry these efforts to reward students and workers simply because of the color of their skin. In most cases the forcing of minority students into the top universities through quotas, results in an increased dropout rate. Only through individual effort and study can true progress be made, they say.

  Let us now take guilt as a reason for Jews to be liberals and relegate it to the ashcan of false and obsolete theories. Jews in America have no more reason to feel guilty about their success here than do the multitudes of our newest citizens who came here from elsewhere. Does one think that the Vietnamese feel guilty about their amazing progress here these past thirty years? Or do the Latinos streaming up here from Central and South America and Mexico feel guilty as they begin to climb the ladder of progress from such lowly beginnings? On the contrary, they are proud of their progress here, as they should be.

  Ernest van den Haag makes the point that although Jews want to be wealthy, they cannot seem to forget the fact that they were poor for so many hundreds of years. Although now their average incomes in America are far above the average, they still tend to identify with oppression and poverty. Living in America and in freedom for several generations, American Jews still tend to identify themselves with the underdog and take on their causes regardless of merit. This is another example of emotions dominating the intellect, and again illustrates the point that the past should not retain a stranglehold on the present or the future.

  Isn't it time for American Jews to finally, and perhaps reluctantly, accept the fact that this free market republic of ours has been at the root of their success here, that they need feel no guilt about their current status, and that they do not have to remain liberals in order to escape that guilty feeling'? I think that time is now.

  ANTI-SEMITISM AND

  THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT

  When one talks to liberal Jews, mention the names of Joe McCarthy, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell and their knee-jerk reaction is usually that this entire group is a bunch of anti-Semites. Most Jews don't bother to read what these guys really are saying or have said. They simply take it on faith that because their Jewish leaders and organizations have assigned them this label, it must be true. This knee-jerk reaction to conservative Christians is not new, and it avoids having to really think more about it.

  One case in particular illustrates this point. In 1964, a book was written by Arnold Forster and Benjamin Epstein, two officials of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), called Danger on the Right. The book attempted to describe those organizations believed to be a danger to Jews, and to assassinate the character of the leaders of those groups. The book is full of half-truths and their attack on one organization, the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade (CACC),
was so full of lies and distortions, these authors should have been sued for libel.

  It so happens that the founder and leader of the CACC, Dr. Fred Schwarz, was known personally by this writer for many years. Dr. Schwarz, of partial Jewish heritage from his father, was raised as a Christian. When his family immigrated to Australia, he became a physician. There he created a successful practice. In 1953, alarmed by the progress of communism throughout the world, Dr. Schwarz came to the United States to educate Americans about the dangers of communism. He came to this country, because he believed that only the United States was strong enough to eventually defeat the growing forces of communism. (He was right. Liberals still find it difficult to give President Reagan the credit for this.)

  My wife and I began listening to Dr. Schwarz in the late 1950s. We probably have heard him speak both in person and on TV scores of times. We have read his monthly newsletter all of these years. We also corresponded with him, pointing out our Jewish heritage, which pleased him. The point here is that in all of Dr. Schwarz's speeches and writings, never was there the slightest trace of anti-Semitism. On the contrary, as a true Christian, Dr. Schwarz always spoke lovingly of the Jewish people. Yet in their book, Forster and Epstein attempted to brand the doctor as a charlatan who preached anticommunism only for the money he could raise and spend for his personal enrichment. They accused him of dabbling in politics, which would have voided CACC's tax-exempt status, and they helped to trigger an IRS examination of CACC. This examination, plus subsequent ones, found nothing in CACC's records to warrant its declassification as a tax-exempt organization. Was an apology ever forthcoming from those authors for their unproven charges against Dr. Schwarz? No, instead they were hailed as loyal Jews who had helped to expose those evil Christians who were trying to convert and subvert us poor, defenseless Jews.

  In his book, Beating the Unbeatable Foe, Dr. Schwarz quotes a column written by William F. Buckley in the 5 June 1962 edition of National Review. Buckley makes the point that the ADL was founded to fight defamation, and since Dr. Schwarz had been widely defamed, then the ADL should be defending Dr. Schwarz instead of participating in spreading defamatory rumors. During his visit to New York in 1962, Dr. Schwarz offered to meet with Forster, who refused, apparently not wanting to find out that there was not a trace of anti-Semitism in Dr. Schwarz. Dr. Schwarz is now semi-retired, living again in Australia, but still communicating the truth about the evils of communism.

  Joe McCarthy, another dark and evil figure for the Jews, never had the smell of anti-Semitism attached to him either. His two main assistants, Roy Cohn and Gerald Schine, were both Jews. McCarthy may have had many faults, but as Nathaniel Weyl wrote in his authoritative book, published in 1968, The Jew in American Politics, McCarthy was never anti-Semitic in any of his speeches, writings, or personal behavior. With all of his personal faults and his questionable value as a true antiCommunist, McCarthy was never a big government advocate. He never targeted the Jews in any way and cannot be regarded as a problem for American Jews.

  Today's boogiemen-Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, et al-seem to have one thing in common. They tend to be evangelical Christians whose basic doctrine is that the Jews are God's chosen people and that the second coming of the Christian Messiah must be preceded by an ingathering of the Jews in Israel. Thus, in spite of occasional lapses in some of their public statements, such as Robertson's comment that Jews are following the wrong track to the promised land, and Falwell's quote that the Antichrist must be a Jew because Jesus was a Jew, both Christian leaders are firmly committed to Israel and the well-being of Jews everywhere. The nationally syndicated radio talk show host, and prominent author and lecturer on Jewish themes, Dennis Prager said he made a deal with Jerry Falwell several years ago. Prager proposed that if Falwell would continue to give his full support to Israel, then if Jesus Christ should eventually reappear, at that time Prager and all Jews would then recognize Jesus as the true Messiah, and we would admit our mistake. What a deal, and Falwell agreed to it.

  One Christian preacher that I know, Frank Eiklor, leader of the group Shalom International, devotes his life to trying to enlighten his fellow Christians as to the need to make amends for their previous persecution of Jews. Eiklor, formerly a self-described Jew-hater, now writes and speaks extensively on how the Jews are truly God's chosen people and that those who persecute Jews will themselves be cursed. Eiklor has a tough road to travel. Christians tend to resent his message because he is calling on them to repent for their past sins against the Jews and to change their current thinking and behavior. On the other side, some Jews tend to distrust him because they think he may be trying to soften them up for the final conversion. Neither worry is appropriate in my opinion. Eiklor simply has a calling to do what he is doing because he believes it is his destiny to do what he does. It is interesting that whenever some tragedy befalls the Jewish people in California, as happened in the recent shooting at a Jewish Community Center in San Fernando Valley, Eiklor was there with a check for the center to help repair the damage.

  Beyond the individual personalities, if one probes deeper into the basic principles that drive the Religious Right, one finds absolutely no advocacy for increasing government power to achieve their religious goals. There is no call for establishing Christianity as the official American religion, to which all must pay obeisance. (There is really no need for that as America is unofficially already a Christian nation by overwhelming numbers.) The main point is that so long as there is freedom from a government-imposed religion, as mandated by the First Amendment to the Constitution, Jews can live safely in their homes, worshipping or not as they choose. The only issue of the Religious Right that touches on government control is the call for a Constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion, but this is not directed against Jews in particular. More on the abortion question later.

  Liberals today sometimes quote Thomas Jefferson and his call for a "wall of separation" between Church and State, a thought expressed in one of Jefferson's 20,000 letters, as an argument for their position on eliminating religion from our public life. It is clear from all of Jefferson's writings, most importantly the Declaration of Independence, that he had no thought of eliminating God and the belief in a higher power, from our political life. Rather he was vehemently against forcing citizens to support any form of organized church or religion.

  One of the three accomplishments Jefferson requested to appear on his tombstone is that he wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. (The other two were that he authored the Declaration of Independence and founded the University of Virginia.) The Virginia Statute proclaimed that Almighty God had created the mind free, and that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money to support any church is wrong. Further that all men should be free to profess their opinions in matters of religion and that opinion in no way should affect their civil capacities. It was the power of government to force people to support a particular church or religion that Jefferson vigorously opposed.

  It is also interesting to note that when the Virginia Statute was proposed in 1786, a great majority rejected an amendment declaring, "Coercion is a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ." Jefferson and his supporters meant that the protection from this coercion should extend to all people, Jews, Gentiles, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and infidels of every denomination, and not just to believers in Jesus Christ. Isn't it ironic that Jewish liberals should try and use Jefferson as a source for their position that religion has no place in politics, when Jefferson was a champion of the rights of all people to freely express their religious beliefs'?

  As a footnote on Thomas Jefferson, his estate at Monticello, Virginia, had fallen into disrepair after his death in 1826. It was Commodore Uriah Levy, a Jewish officer in the United States Navy, who purchased Monticello and began to restore it. After he died, and after the United States government failed to continue to maintain the estate, his nephew, Jefferson Levy, took over and continued the restoration until the estate was finally sold in
1890 to a foundation that still owns and preserves it. One could almost divine that there was some ethereal link between Thomas Jefferson, believed to have been a Deist, and the American Jewish people.

  The argument over whether the Ten Commandments can be posted in schools and courts, or whether a nondenominational prayer can be said at public events, is so off the mark that it is a wonder that thoughtful Jews can support the liberal position on these issues. This nation was founded on the basis of religion and I am hopeful Congress and the courts will reverse the misinterpretation of the First Amendment by the liberals. It is sad to see the ACLU take such a leadership position on opposing these somewhat fringe items and yet be silent on supporting the right of parents to spend their own tax dollars to pay the tuition for the school of their choice for their children's education.

  Jews cannot exist in a vacuum. They need to live with and get along with their Christian neighbors. To repeat, and it can never be overemphasized, the real enemy of Jews throughout their 4,000 year history has been a dictatorial government. The Religious Right almost without exception seeks to persuade, proselytize, and convert completely through voluntary actions. So what is there to fear from these good people? As Jews, nothing. If our main concern is that Jews for Jesus, and similar groups, will convert our kids, I've got news for you. Our intermarriage rate among secular Jews is now over 50%, and this unfortunate happening is not the result of the activities of any of these groups, Robertson, Falwell, the Southern Baptists, or any other nonJewish group. We must look within for the reasons for this phenomenon.

  We tend to ignore the fact that when our kids attend Jewish day schools, K-8, and even better when they stay through Jewish high schools, the rate of intermarriage shrinks to single digits. Yet our Jewish liberal leaders fight school choice, or some type of voucher system with a vengeance. In 1993 in California, a voucher system was beat back with $20,000,000 of teachers' union money, spearheaded of course by their Jewish leadership. The Jewish vote tended to follow the teachers' hysterical warnings about the coming elimination of the public school system if the measure passed. This was another example of American Jews looking through the wrong end of the telescope, and seeing boogiemen, when they should be looking at the broad picture of encouraging Jewish day schools by making it financially easier for Jewish parents to educate their kids there.