Why Jews Should Not Be Liberals Read online

  On the November 2000 ballot in California another voucher proposal appeared which would give a $4,000 voucher to parents to assist them in sending their children to any school of their choice. The California Teachers Unions and their liberal associates again opposed this measure with all of the strength and money they could assemble. Even though the minority parents according to recent polls, appeared to support the measure in great numbers, the proposal was soundly defeated by a two to one majority. No doubt California's Jews again followed the unions and the leading Democratic politicians to the detriment of their own interests. Eventually I hope and believe common sense will prevail, and some form of tax or tuition credit will be enacted. This will stimulate competition for the poorest performing public schools to the benefit primarily of the children attending today's inner city schools.

  Another feature of Jews' fear of the Religious Right could be traced back to World War II, and the scourge of Hitler. Prior to 1941, America by a dominant majority, some say 90%, was opposed to getting involved in the conflict. Paul Johnson writes that in 1942, polls showed that Americans regarded Jews as the third biggest threat to the United States after the Japanese and the Germans. There was more anti-Semitism in this country during World War II than at any time in our history. Some of the leaders of the anti-war movement were isolationists who spoke out against getting involved in another European war; many were Republicans.

  The news that Hitler was killing Jews was not widely known at that time. After that news surfaced, and in spite of Roosevelt's lack of action, American Jews tended to equate political conservatives of the day with a passive attitude towards Hitler. Only later did it develop that Roosevelt, the modern Jewish messiah to some Jews, had turned his back on helping the persecuted Jews of Europe. Having captured 90% of the Jewish vote in his various campaigns, Roosevelt believed that his first priority was to win the war, regardless of how many Jews were being slaughtered in Europe. So the railroad tracks leading to the concentration camps remained intact and the shores of America were closed to Jewish refugees until late in the war. If either of those decisions had been reversed, probably thousands of innocent Jews would have been saved. Roosevelt was another example of Jews following the wrong champion. Still the stigma against the conservatives of that day persists to the present.

  Ironically, today's conservatives are almost universally allied with Israel in preserving that country's borders and existence. It is the liberals today who are the ones pressuring Israel into a risky detente with the PLO. No other country in the world would take on the surrender of vital territories for the "promise of peace." Yet the Jews of America, the liberal ones, continue to distrust the conservatives who remain consistent in their support of a strong Israel. In fact, it is the conservatives in America, who are trying with little success, to enlighten the Jews of Israel that the Arab countries cannot be trusted until they renounce their goal of eliminating Israel. So, let us ask the question again: Should American Jews' fear of the Religious Right be a legitimate reason for Jews' liberal vote'? I don't think so!

  In his 1997 book, Faith or Fear, author Elliott Abrams recounts the recent history of both Catholics and Protestants in their changed view of Jews and Judaism. All of the major religions have renounced their previously held theory that it was the Jews who were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ, and that Judaism had become a "dead" religion after the Temple's destruction in 70 AD. As far back as 1965, in its declaration "Nostra Aetate," the Catholic Church stressed the church's origin in and its close relationship to Judaism. Jews remain very dear to God, it stated. In early 2000, Pope John Paul II made an historic speech in which he apologized for his Church's sins against the Jewish people throughout history. This is significant because it went far beyond what this same pope said in 1979 when he visited the death camp at Auschwitz and spoke then only about the horrors of that evil place. No mention was made then about the lack of Catholic concern during the time those atrocities were taking place. Thus there have been major movements in recent years to erase the long held stigma against the Jewish people.

  In spite of these recent fortunate expressions, when I reread the brief history of anti-Semitism, as published by the Anne Frank Foundation in 1989, I cannot help but wonder if these positive changes are for real and will be permanent. When I was growing up in Chicago in the 1930s, I did not go out of my way to proclaim my Judaism. There was enough of the influence of Hitler around plus the general dislike of Jews among the Catholic toughs in the neighborhood that it was frequently the better part of valor to simply clam up when the subject was discussed. So I can understand somewhat why American Jews today may still be concerned about the remaining traces of this vile sentiment that may still be in existence.

  There is no question that the 2,000-year history of hatred of the Jews for having killed and then rejecting their "God," is difficult to comprehend today in our enlightened twenty-first century. Still the central point that comes through to me is that although first the Christian Church, and then Martin Luther in the sixteenth century continued to preach their philosophy of hatred, it was only when they convinced the reigning monarchs to take action that Jews felt the full wrath of their antiSemitism. It was only when the Christian Church was given the power of the State that they then could carry out their inquisitions. It was only when the State itself, as under Hitler and Stalin, began their death cycles, that Jews became the victims. The truth remains that it is the power of a centralized government that remains the real threat to Jews.

  In 1974, American Lutherans acknowledged Martin Luther's antiJewish writings, admitting that they were beyond any defense, they regretted them, and did not support them. Most Protestant churches have changed their attitude toward attempting to convert Jews and in acknowledging the existence of Judaism. Still some liberal fears have not diminished; now they have targeted the politically conservative Christian Right, the evangelicals, as the enemy in spite of what the facts appear to be.

  A 1994 American Jewish Committee survey found that American Jews perceive Republicans and conservatives as being more anti-Semitic than Democrats and liberals. This same report found little connection between anti-Semitism and non-extremist political or partisan orientation. This word has apparently not been given much publicity by our Jewish leaders. They prefer to remain comfortable with their boogiemen of the Religious Right and conservatives. To liberal Jews, it appears the only acceptable form of discrimination is their antagonism toward religious Christians. "Don't bother me with the facts" seems to be their attitude.

  Alan Dershowitz in his 1991 book, Chutzpah, sees a sinister campaign underway by the Christian Right to establish Christianity as the official religion of America. This will inevitably lead, thinks Dershowitz, to Judaism becoming a second-class religion, and that somehow what will follow is the selection of Christianity as the true or preferred or dominant one. Dershowitz wonders why "some on the Jewish religious right also join the Christian religious right in favoring restrictions on a woman's right to choose abortion, in opposing gay rights, in favoring the death penalty, and in demanding censorship of sexually explicit material."

  He goes on to write that perhaps support for the Lubavitch (Orthodox) movement reflects a sense that secular Jews are not authentic. It is difficult to find any link between the positions he favors with any Jewish laws or traditions. He can only conclude that the alleged right-wing agenda of "breaking down the wall of separation between religion and government is dangerous to the status of Jews in America. It is bad for Jews, and it is bad for America." What is surprising is that this noted legal scholar apparently does not believe what the First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Nothing is stated about favoring one religion over another or establishing an official "American religion." If the Religious Right were going to try and do what Dershowitz is afraid they are trying to do, then certainly an amendment to our Constitution would be required. T
here has never been nor, I believe, will there ever be such a movement for an amendment to establish an official State religion in this country.

  Walter Williams, the great political economist and writer, wrote in a 1999 Orange County Register column, "The Holocaust's true lesson is that there is no greater potential for evil than powerful centralized government. This century alone, not counting war, 170 million people have been murdered by their own government. Neither we in the United States nor Jews in Israel have learned the lesson of the Holocaust."

  As a final note on this subject, an article by Daniel Pipes in the May 1999 issue of Coninientarsv, makes a strong case that it is the Muslim world that is the chief enemy of Jews worldwide, and particularly in these United States. Mr. Pipes details the various violent episodes perpetrated by Muslims in our recent history, including the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, up to 1997's shooting on top of the Empire State Building which killed seven tourists. Now with the horrific attacks on our country of 9/11/01, perpetrated by radical Muslim terrorists, Jews should finally be convinced as to who their enemies really are. Let us not forget the myth that was soon circulated in various Arab quarters that somehow Jews were behind those attacks because the number of Jews killed in the World Trade Center collapse was fewer than projected. It is particularly unfortunate that throughout much of the Muslim world, Jews are still often portrayed as a people that does not deserve to live, let alone have its own nation of Israel. There is little doubt that anti-Semitism from Christians is almost everywhere on the decline, whereas that miserable philosophy is on the rise in the Muslim world. We don't hear much about this from our Jewish leaders in the United States, but we constantly are warned about the dangers from the Religious Right. When are we Jews going to wake up?

  JEWISH CHARITY,

  A LIBERAL EXCLUSIVE?

  Deep within the Jewish religion and tradition, and deep within the hearts and minds of most Jews, both observant and secular, lies the belief that charity-helping those less fortunate-is of the highest calling. It may not have made the Ten Commandments, but it is still a weighty obligation for Jews. Although the Hebrew language has no direct word for charity, the closest is generally considered to be T.redekah. The basic meaning of this word is "justice," but still it probably is the most commonly used word by Jews to describe the act of giving.

  The Biblical roots for charity within Judaism probably go back to kind acts committed by our patriarchs, to Abraham welcoming the strangers into his tent, and the commandment that one should leave the corners of the field to be harvested by the poor who do not have enough to eat. "And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather the fallen fruit of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and for the stranger; I am the Lord your God." (Leviticus 19:9-10) Dr. Meir Tamari in his book, With All Your Possessions, adds an interesting caveat from the Talmud on this point that first the poor themselves had to harvest the corners before they were entitled to consume that food. This was done to encourage the poor to work for what they got, and to prevent the attitude of being entitled. Undoubtedly there are many other roots to charity to be found in the Torah, the Talmud, and other writings, but for our purposes, we can accept the notion that charity is of vital importance to most American Jews.

  By definition, charity is an act of kindness from one person to another with no expectation of reward for that action. Moses Maimonides (1135- 1204) was generally considered to be one of the greatest Rabbinate scholars and philosophers. He developed eight principles of charity, the greatest of which was helping another to become an independent, selffinancing person. The next greatest one was to be an anonymous giver so the recipient would not know whom the giver was. And so on down the line of charity, to the least one, where whatever was given was almost pulled away from the giver under some kind of moral threat. When European Jews first came to America, the practice of establishing "poor boxes" in every home was prevalent, as was the lending of funds, generally through the local temple, to those who needed them either for sustenance or to start up a business.

  In today's America, giving by Jews to their favorite causes is legendary. Israel would probably not exist today without the generosity of American Jews, nor would many other worthwhile organizations. A December 1998 article in Moment magazine describes how a few of the prodigious Jewish contributors are now targeting much of their giving to certain specified Jewish causes. Steven Spielberg, for example, is dedicating much of his giving to establishing an historical record of the Holocaust through interviews with thousands of survivors via his Righteous Persons Foundation. Michael Steinhardt and Charles Bronfman have launched the Birthright Project whose purpose is to give every Jew in the world between ages fifteen and twenty-six, a first-time ten-day trip to Israel as a free gift from the Jewish people. Steinhardt and Morton Mandel are teaming up to help Jewish teachers become more effective and to be better paid. Other Jewish billionaires, however, do not focus their giving on Jewish causes. Regardless of whether these rare individuals give to Jewish causes or to other worthwhile institutions, there is a limited number in this category, so most charity must come from other sources.

  Until modern times, this giving was always from individuals or foundations established by those individuals. When income taxes became larger, charitable giving took on an added glow; it was taxdeductible for both Jews and non-Jews alike. Somehow though, the notion grew that for Jews to exercise their charitable instincts, they had to be liberals, and even worse, that conservatives were less charitable than were liberals.

  Here is one possible explanation. As American Jews drifted away from the roots of their religion and became more secular, they did not lose their charitable tradition. Instead, they wanted to see more accomplished in helping the poor than their own giving seemed to accomplish. As Rabbi Lapin has written, Jews are ambitious and want more and faster action whenever possible to achieve their goals. When the welfare laws first came into existence on a very modest basis, many Jews seized upon these laws as necessary supplements to their own giving. Now there were greater funds available to accomplish their avowed goals. Few stopped to think through where and how these funds were coming from and how they were to be disbursed. Where before Jews did not question the notion that giving was a personal act, which made the giver feel better and did not shame the recipient, now the impersonal government stepped into the middle as the "honest broker." Now funds were extracted from the givers through taxes on their income or property and the recipients no longer had any personal ties whatever to the givers.

  Eventually, as the income tax rates climbed and politicians vied for the title of being the most generous, charity became a political issue rather than a personal one. Those in the political world that could dream up the most extravagant programs to enlarge this so-called "charitable" action were generally those who would get reelected. Who were the creative people who were most imaginative, the most able to sell their new programs to help the poor? Why it was none other than our own homegrown liberals in the Democratic Party, led by the esteemed FDR, on through the magnificent, strong-arm leadership of Lyndon Johnson, with his Great Society programs.

  The "selfish, non-caring conservatives" were soon left far behind in this game of how many new ways can we use our tax monies to help the poor. And who were the folk generally at the head of the charitable givers? Of course, it was our charitable Jews. Like lemmings being led over the cliff to their demise, American Jews led by their always charitable leaders, gravitated to that party which promised the most help to the less fortunate. Wasn't it wonderful? Now we could feed our basic Jewish instincts of charity and most of it didn't even have to come from our own pockets. And what we gave was tax deductible! (Remember that the personal tax rates before Ronald Reagan's presidency were as high as 70%.)

  Oh sure, we Jews still continued to give at prodigious ra
tes, but now the burden would be shared by everyone. Even if "everyone" did not want to have this forced giving thrust upon him or her, we knew what was best for all concerned. Thus was born the notion that only by joining the Democratic Party, only by proudly being called liberals, only then were American Jews fulfilling their ancient calling of Tsedekah, helping the poor. The fact that in America it was because our free market system of capitalism provided sufficient excess funds to permit this tax structure to come about, and because Americans became the most proficient tax collectors and taxpayers the world has ever known, somehow escaped much analysis. We Jews simply knew this was the way to go!

  As the old saying goes, if something appears too good, it usually is. After an entire generation of forced giving through our taxes, we find almost as many Americans below the poverty level as when the Great Society programs were launched back in the 1960s. Finally in the late part of the twentieth century, over the strong opposition of Congressional liberals, our federal welfare programs were being reformed. Only now are we facing up to the challenge and trying to accomplish the worthwhile goal of helping people through more voluntary efforts. Will American Jews now begin to recognize that they have been following a false God in their support of these non-voluntary programs? It still may be too early to assume that, but we can at least recap why Jews should not use the concept of charity to justify their belief that only by being liberals could they satisfy their Jewish tradition of charity.