Why Jews Should Not Be Liberals Page 7
Charity is personal; to make it non-personal through enforced government programs negates the entire concept of charity. While it is true that in Jewish tradition, communal philanthropy was an obligation to help the poor, the actual giving came primarily from individual Jews. Conservatives are no different from liberals in wanting to give a helping hand to those who need it. So why should Jews believe that only by being liberal can they be truly Jewish? Dr. Tamari writes that there was nothing in the Jewish charitable system that resembled the redistribution tendencies of the welfare state.
Julius Rosenwald perhaps heads the list of American Jewish conservatives who were great givers. Cofounder of Sears Roebuck, Rosenwald was a staunch conservative, a close friend and supporter of Herbert Hoover in 1932, as were many of his Jewish friends. Rosenwald became one of the great contributors to the education of black children. From 1917 to his death in 1932, Rosenwald was personally responsible through gifts and other fundraising for the building of over 5,000 schools in the South, which educated over 600,000 black children.
Currently, Theodore Forstmann, a politically conservative Jew, is contributing many millions of dollars to the establishment of scholarships to permit poor children to attend schools of their choice, and not be forced to attend inferior schools. Jewish liberals have no monopoly on being great givers, but it is sad to see so many great givers believe that they must be liberals to carry out that noteworthy action. In today's roaring twenty-first century economy there are many new computer-driven Jewish billionaires who are not liberals and who are making enormous charitable contributions to their favorite organizations. One of these, Mr. Henry Samueli, cofounder of the booming company Broadcom, is giving away some of his millions as if there were no tomorrow. More power to him!
What seems to be overlooked, or not even considered, is that it is our free market system, which is based on voluntary cooperation between people, that is the basis and the raison d'etre for the wealth and good fortune of all Americans, including Jews. To cast aside this truth, or even worse, never to consider it, is a conundrum that needs to be overcome. If a Steven Spielberg wants to give away huge portions of his personal fortune, more power to him. But please, let us not accept the notion that only by supporting liberal Democrats and their particular programs can he fulfill his charitable instincts. If the liberals truly had their political way in America, Spielberg and other billionaires would probably have most of their excess earnings taxed away, for the "good of the poor."
One of today's prominent debates is whether to eliminate the "death" or estate tax. The liberals defend it because only 2% of estates are subject to it. If Jews would analyze who comprises the bulk of that 2%, and realize that Jews are a big part of that number, perhaps they would rethink their opposition to the elimination of this class-envy tax. It is the old story of biting the hand that feeds you.
If it is the free market system that provided the framework for making a lot of money, and if it is the conservatives who have been the champions of strengthening and maintaining the relative purity of that wonderful system through limiting the powers of government, then for Heaven's sake, recognize that truism, and don't march in lockstep with those who play on your sentiments that only by being a liberal can you be a truly charitable human being.
The bottom line to all of this is that the oft given reason from rabbis to famous personalities to the average person in the street that only by being a liberal will we be truly generous to those less fortunate is a myth. It is time for American Jews and their leaders to pierce the fabric of what is truly charity and acknowledge that neither political party has a monopoly on this feature of our society. Even better would be their acknowledgment when all is said and done that it is the conservative philosophy of maximum individual liberty, limited government, and reduced taxes that provide the bedrock for the continued prosperity of American Jews, which in turn enables them to perform their acts of individual giving.
One final thought on this issue. The late, great Los Angeles Rabbi, Edgar Magnin once wrote, "There are two expressions for charity in Hebrew. One is 'tsedakah' which means justice, and implies that whatever we do for others is a divine command, since all we have comes from God and we must share it. The other expression is a little closer to the English word charity. It is 'gemiluth hasadim, ' best translated as `acts of kindness.' It has to do with attitudes, feelings, gentility, sensitivity. The emphasis is on attitude, feelings, with no mention of coercion." Rabbi Magnin emphasized that "one's attitude when giving is what makes it charity."
One can conclude from the rabbi's profound observation that coercive government programs merely harden the hearts of the givers and strip away any kindly feelings they may have had for the takers. The takers soon begin to believe that this forced welfare has become their God-given right and they form organizations to preserve that "right." This is what our welfare programs have produced and it is time for American Jews to recognize this fact. The results of revising and reducing the welfare programs are now coming in. The welfare rolls have been reduced by 50% nationwide, due mainly to the more restrictive rules, plus a strong economy. To try and satisfy our charitable instincts through supporting mandatory government programs is not only ineffective, but is also not in the Jewish tradition.
On reflection then, is it not the liberal philosophy of today that is out of step with Jewish tradition? When will the Jewish leaders and the rabbis of America step up to the plate, and acknowledge that the liberal Democratic Party has no monopoly on providing good things for the less fortunate? When will I hear at a High Holiday sermon that we must bless our free market system in America for providing us with the excess capital that is now ours to give away, instead of hearing that we are less than worthy Jews if we now vote for some restricting of government aid to illegal immigrants? I won't hold my breath.
CHARITY OR JUSTICE...
WHAT IS MORE JEWISH?
The fact that charity is so strongly embedded within Judaism and is used by so many American Jews as the main reason to remain political liberals requires further analysis and discussion. Is it only by being liberals that Jews can satisfy their charitable yearnings? Do liberals really have more heart and goodness than conservatives, even if they have the same goals? Is charity such a dominant strain within Judaism that it alone should dictate our politics? Or does Judaism primarily demand "justice" for all, with "charity" being only a subset of the more inclusive term "justice"?
If "justice" is the dominant theme of Judaism, then perhaps Jews who remain liberals mainly to honor the "charity" tradition are misreading Jewish tradition. I understand that here I step into the complex world of biblical and Jewish scholarship. Since I do not pretend to be a biblical scholar, I feel free to tackle this question while acknowledging my innocence on the subject. At the same time I hope that this chapter works to buttress my argument that to be charitable, or even to be just, Jews can just as easily be political conservatives as liberals. And in fact, the biblical writings on the subject weigh heavily on the side of the conservatives.
When one looks for the word charity in the general index of names and subjects in the Soncino Second Edition of the Pentateuch and Haftarahs, it is not listed. There are, however, some twenty-two listings for the word justice. This would seem to reinforce the seldom-mentioned fact that, in Judaism, the word "tsedekah," often used as a synonym for "charity," really does translate to mean "justice." Does this then mean that when Jews cite charity as their primary reason for remaining liberals, they would be more consistent with Judaism if they understood that what they really want is justice for all, and especially for the less fortunate? It therefore seems appropriate to explore the various meanings of justice in the Torah, to see if we can find some connection with that concept and modern liberalism.
The most prominent listing for justice is in Deuteronomy 16:20: "Justice, justice shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." The notes for that section stress that th
e duplication of the word justice gives the greatest emphasis to carrying out justice for all in the most even-handed manner possible. "Do not use unjust means to secure the victory of justice," a Chasidic rabbi is quoted as saying in the notes. He continued, "In the eyes of the Prophets, justice was a Divine, irresistible force." The words "Justice, justice shalt thou follow" are defined as the heart of the humane (charitable?) legislation of the Torah, and following this law fulfills the demand for social righteousness by the Prophets and Sages.
The notes to Deuteronomy 16:20 continue to expand on the interpretation of justice and it is here that we find a link to charity. "Justice is a positive conception, and includes charity, philanthropy, and every endeavour to bring out what is highest and best in others.... To do justly and to love mercy is the Prophets' summing up of human duty towards our fellow-men." The notes add that justice even extends to asserting the claims of the poor upon the rich, and of the helpless upon those who have the means to help. Thus these Soncino notes suggest that although there is no pure Hebrew word for charity, charity can be considered an important subsection of the full definition of justice.
There are, however, other writings that must be considered. Exodus 23:3 says, "Neither shalt thou favour a poor man in his cause." The notes comment that the "Biblical view of justice is remarkable for its unbending insistence on the strictest impartiality." The judge is not to favor a poor man on the theory that the rich man would not miss any sum involved. "Sympathy and compassion are great virtues, but even these feelings must be silenced in the presence of Justice."
In Leviticus 19:15 it is written, "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor favour the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor." The notes to this section quote the Talmud: "Judge every man in the scale of merit; refuse to condemn by appearances, but put the best construction on the deeds of your fellow men." The entire thrust of this section is that to be poor is no great honor, and that simply being poor carries with it no claim on a judge's sympathy or on any skewing of the equal application of justice.
So what are we to make of this scripture? What, if any, is the connection between justice and modern political philosophies? Is modern liberalism justified in suggesting that it is somehow in the Jewish tradition to use the force of government for charitable purposes? Nothing referred to above would tend to support this notion. The entire thrust of the Torah consists of Commandments to the individual to do what is right and to worship God as individuals, not as members of some organized force. It is only as individuals that we as Jews can dispense charity, and we should pay our political allegiance to that philosophy which emphasizes individual responsibility. The idea of individual responsibility is not a main component of today's liberalism.
It seems to me the best definition of charity is that we are each of us endowed with the emotions and passions and ability to do what is right or what is wrong. If we believe in the concept of justice and all that this entails, then out of the goodness of our hearts we will exert our energies as best as we can to dispense charity and help those less fortunate. Certainly we are fulfilling this goodness in this country to the tune of over 2(X) billion dollars of voluntary contributions a year. But nowhere do I find in our Jewish tradition any meaningful connection to the government-enforced "charity" that is at the heart of today's liberal dogma.
This use of force to accomplish what liberals want permeates all of their legislation and thinking, and thus downgrades and diminishes the importance of the individual citizen making up his own mind as to how to spend his hard-earned money. In view of the Torah itself, it is a false notion that only by being liberals can Jews satisfy their charitable instincts. Judaism stresses justice as one of its cornerstones, and charity is a subsection of that all-inclusive term. American Jews need to rethink their reasons for remaining liberals. The desire to be charitable should no longer be the justification for ignoring the conservative philosophy, which above all stresses individual freedom, responsibility, and true compassion for the less fortunate among us.
It is interesting that when Jews came to America, they founded societies to help immigrants get established. Those associations were not labeled charitable organizations. Rather they were known as "benevolent societies." Why "benevolent" instead of "charitable"? Perhaps because the true definition of "benevolent" is to do good to others, to express goodwill or kindly feelings, to act out of kindness with an altruistic, generous, liberal, benign, charitable, philanthropic feeling. "Benevolent" encompasses much more than simply being charitable. Also, nowhere in its definition is there any reference to the use of force, either privately or from some external power, such as government. Thus it would appear that Jews have always correctly used the word "benevolent" to express their deeply held feeling of doing good for others. It has only been since the 1930s in the United States that this feeling has been subverted into substituting the use of government force for the previous system of voluntary benevolence.
If we wish to use the power of government to achieve our Jewish goals, let that mighty power be used to secure justice for our citizens. Justice would include making sure that the playing field is equal for all of the players, that there is equal opportunity for all in pursuing their individual ambitions, that there are equal blessings and punishments for all based upon individual achievements or transgressions, and that each of us can enjoy the fruits of our own labors with as little interference as possible from any outside force.
Justice would also dictate that government must remain the impartial referee that sets the rules and enforces them without favor to any party, and that government limits its powers to only those necessary to keeping the peace among its citizens. If one accepts this position, then American Jews can no longer remain political liberals but must recognize that today's political conservatism more closely aligns with the principles and traditions of Judaism.
TO BE JUST LIKE
THE CHRISTIANS
Throughout their history, Jews have resisted being absorbed by their conquerors. Whether those rulers were Greek or Roman or Christian, Jews have always fought to keep their own ways and traditions and religion separate from that of the ruling majority. For the 2,0(X) years of Christianity, one of the main reasons for the discrimination in its various forms against Jews during many of those years was that Jews stubbornly refused to accept Jesus Christ as their Messiah. In spite of their isolation into ghettos, Jews continued to resist being absorbed and retained their own identity as a separate people. Only in the past century has there been almost complete acceptance of Jews as a people separate and distinct from Christians, with the resultant decline of anti-Semitism. It is now official Catholic doctrine that Jews should not be held responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. This is definitely a change from when I was growing up in Chicago in the 1930s. Then the term "Christ killer" was not that uncommon to be heard from our non-Jewish neighbors.
Is it not thus somewhat ironic that instead of maintaining their own separate identity as they have throughout the ages, today's American Jews seem to want to emulate the liberal Christian majority in supporting the popular programs of government control and redistribution? Nowhere is there heard a call for Jews to stand apart, to resist these attempts to reduce individual freedom, to restate the Jewish tradition of the importance of the individual. In Jewish life it has always been the individual who was granted the greatest freedom and liberty. Yes, the community is important; yes, Judaism is a communal religion whereby we are to some extent our brother's keeper; but it is still the individual and the family around which the religion is based. Nowhere was it thought that some supreme government authority could force the individual to do its bidding. Jews recognized only the authority of God as revealed to them by their Bible and its interpreters. So from where does today's "me-tooism" stem? Why do Jews feel they must adhere to the ideas of the dominant Christian majority in this country?
Milton Friedman, the
famed Jewish economist, had an interesting angle in an article he wrote for the Freeman in October 1988. Friedman was trying to determine why so many Jews seemed to exhibit an anticapitalist mentality, while at the same time they gloried in the benefits derived from living under that same capitalism. He admitted it remained a mystery to him, but he did advance one theory.
Friedman wrote that because Jews in Europe in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries were channeled into business and money lending, two of the lesser regarded vocations in the eyes of the Christians, they were regarded as somewhat "lesser beings" by the dominant Christian majority. To show that they were really "nice folks," Jews tended to downplay their success in the business world so as not to stand out excessively from the crowd. Jews also wanted to portray themselves as the guardians of the poor and downtrodden. This would then somehow erase the image of Jews as being nothing but money-grubbing, profit hungry shylocks. Friedman thus concluded that this trait of always wanting to be in sympathy with the majority in the country wherein they resided has somehow persisted in the traditions of today's American Jews.
We see this somewhat in the positions advocated by some of our leading Jewish personalities. I cannot think of any prominent Jew in the Hollywood entertainment business that can be considered to be a political conservative. (Although he is not part of the Hollywood crowd, Jewish humorist/pundit Jackie Mason is a prominent entertainer and is definitely not a liberal.) Is it because they really believe in the liberal philosophy or is it the herd instinct at work, where no one wants to be the first to break out of the mold?
The need to be generous and magnanimous so as not to be called shylocks, plus the reinforcement from our religious leaders, has led Jews down the slippery slope to backing any feel good government programs designed to help the poor. If we could not accomplish all of our worthy goals from individual and community efforts, then it was a natural leap to support government programs, especially since the American majority advanced these programs, or so it seemed.