Why Jews Should Not Be Liberals

by Larry Sternberg

  In addition to this inconsistency, Senator Lieberman's voting record in the United States Senate reveals that on several issues, he supports the conservative position, rather than the liberal one. He has supported school vouchers, welfare reform, privatizing Social Security, and supporting the Gulf War in 1991, which most of his fellow Democrats opposed. There are other issues where Lieberman has voted against the majority liberal position, which illustrates I believe, the 80/20 principle. (Although Lieberman's selection as his running mate did somewhat clear Al Gore of his close association with the tainted Clinton, it was insufficient to provide the winning margin.)

  During the recently completed Republican convention, hardly a word was heard about cutting back the overgrown, wasteful, federal bureaucracy, which now spends $2.4 trillion annually. Instead the Republican nominee, George W., Bush, a self-described conservative, proposed increased spending for education, teachers' training, and various other federal programs. The only program to increase individual freedom was that of reducing individual income taxes. Was this just reaching out for the independent voters, or was it another example of politicians being less than 100% in support of their proclaimed political philosophy? The 80/20 principle again`?

  In my own case, there are parts of capitalism that I do not like. I abhor the actions of certain major corporations who terminate the employment of long-term employees when they near their retirement age in order to avoid paying out full retirement benefits. I have a friend who was recently laid off by a major aerospace company after twenty-four years of faithful service. He was simply called in one Friday and told that he was no longer needed because the man upstairs had ordered a cutback. There was nothing told him about what benefits he had coming, only that he might be recalled some day. Fortunately, after almost one year had passed by, he was recalled, but in the interim he suffered much stress. I am hopeful that in this enlightened age, such examples are diminishing.

  There is no question that there are many injustices that occur in the marketplace under capitalism, but when one searches for a better alternative system, we have yet to find one. (Remember Churchill's quote.) We pass certain laws that help protect the individual rights of people, no employee discrimination because of age, sex, religion, etc., and these are effective so long as they do not become the plaything of attorneys wielding their "class action" swords. As imperfect human beings, any political and economic system we live under will always have its share of injustices. One difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives expect these imperfections and try to minimize them, whereas liberals seem to believe that human conduct is somehow perfectible in this earthly existence, and we only need more government programs to completely eliminate any and all injustices.

  The less than 100'1'( allegiance to a given philosophy occurs right within the Sternberg household. My wife Ellie, who is usually more consistent that I am in adhering to the conservative or libertarian creed, is a strong supporter of eliminating smoking from public restaurants by decree of government. She believes that tobacco smoke is deadly wherever it occurs, and as such should be outlawed because it is a health hazard. She believes that even though the air within a private establishment is theoretically "private," still the danger of tobacco smoke to everyone is sufficient to warrant the ban on smoking in restaurants.

  Although I agree with her that it is pleasant not to have to worry about smelling tobacco fumes when eating because smoking in restaurants in California is now illegal, should not this preference be left to the marketplace to decide'? We all have a choice as to where to eat, and if we don't like a certain place because of its tobacco odors, we do not have to patronize it. Also I have read that the public health reports on the dangers of secondhand tobacco smoke were vastly overstated. Over Ellie's strenuous objections, I still feel that she departs from her basic libertarian philosophy in continuing to hold to her position, thus making this her 80/20 example.

  In my own case, I depart from my basics in that I believe we should have universal military training for our young men. If we would take every youth at the age of eighteen, and insert him into a branch of our armed forces for one to two years, we would have a much healthier nation. At age eighteen, most kids do not know what they want to do. Many lack discipline and are already developing bad habits. The experience of serving in our military even for that brief time, would give most of them a new outlook on life, and result in reducing the amount of crime and dissipation that is currently associated with that age group. I believe that my own service in the navy for over four years, first as an enlisted man and then as an officer, made me a better person.

  I have read where the marines can take a group of kids coming from the worst of our neighborhoods and in just thirteen weeks of basic training, completely change their attitudes and lives for the better. Yes, this is an example of using the force of government to bring about some good in this country, and I plead guilty to advocating the use of such force for this purpose. So this is my 80/20 example.

  To sum up this 80/20 section, as one of our recent presidents was wont to say, let me be perfectly clear on this issue. All conservatives are not good and all liberals are not bad. There are inconsistencies and exceptions on both sides. Liberalism says vote for them, even though they don't believe you have the brains and common sense to live your lives in your own best interests, and that you need the "wise men" of government to lead you and to protect you from your mistakes. Conservatism says we must keep government out of our lives to the maximum, but continues to advocate a Constitutional amendment to prohibit abortion, and refuses to even consider moderating our draconian illicit drug use laws, which result in flooding our jails and prisons with nonviolent offenders.

  As Jews, however, I would hope that the decision as to which philosophy is closest to our own religion and traditions has been made clear in this writing. Judaism and conservatism are an almost perfect match. Judaism and liberalism, like oil and water, are an impossible match.

  THE POSSIBLE DOWNSIDE OF

  A POLITICAL CHANGE

  When making any sort of a major change in one's life, such as is advocated in this writing from liberal to conservative, one must take into consideration the possible downsides to making such a change. We need to worry about how this change will affect our mental processes, our physical health, our relations with our friends and loved ones, our business contacts and career, and in a broader sense, how this change will influence current happenings in our country and the world. Wow! No wonder such changes occur infrequently and usually only after some cataclysmic event. Well, I cannot say that reading and agreeing with this book fits the description of such a happening, but let us briefly think about the possible repercussions of a massive switch taking place among American Jews from being the sheep-like liberals of today, to the free thinking, independent, rugged, self-disciplined conservatives of tomorrow.

  First, to address worry, somewhere in my vast readings I came across the formula on how to handle worry. It seems that on the average, 95% of the things we worry about in our daily lives never come to pass. All our everyday worries (dying in an airplane accident, passing tomorrow's test, our spouse cheating on us, making next month's mortgage payment, the stock market crashing, etc.) either never happen or if they do, they end up being merely a ripple in one's life stream. Of course, each one of us is an individual so different events will affect us in different ways. As I think about almost all of my own nighttime fears and worries, except for the possible exception of not selling my stock portfolio in September 1987, as I dreamed I should have, I really cannot remember anything of consequence that I worried about that became an actual problem.

  Taking away 95% of the 100% leaves just 5% of our worries to deal with. Of the remaining 5%, again on the average, 4% of that 5% are problems or challenges that we handle more or less successfully. In other words these are real items that one way or the other, we solve and go on with our lives. As to the final 1%, these are the worries that probab
ly remain with us for an extended period of time. Is my career progressing satisfactorily" Am I in the right profession or job? Will I find the right person to spend my life with? Will our kids find their proper life's companions? Will the citizens of this country use their common sense and make the right political decisions that will safeguard the freedoms of our people? And so on. This remaining 1% we struggle with and hopefully either eventually resolve to everyone's benefit, or simply live with the results.

  The bottom line of all of this is that in considering the possible effects of Jews' political change, we need discuss and worry about only the most important of the possible consequences that may occur to the reader as he or she contemplates this momentous change. The following are the questions that I believe are worthy of asking and answering.

  1. Will I have to find a new spouse? No, not if both of you will become enlightened together; or at worse, if one of you absorbs the message, and the other one remains at the minimum, neutral. Otherwise, if only one of you sees the light, and depending on the importance of this issue in your particular household, you may need to revise your katubah, the Jewish marriage document.

  2. Will I need to find new friends to associate with? No, not if you can use your powers of persuasion and eloquence and give them a copy of this book to assist them in making this change in their thinking. You need convert only a few of your closest friends to enjoy your new philosophy. Otherwise, I suggest that you begin to attend seminars led by noted conservatives in order to make new friends more in keeping with your new ideology. I suggest subscribing to the publications of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) as a worthy beginning.

  3. Will I need to change temples and find a new rabbi'? Probably yes. Unfortunately, until the ideas expressed herein attain wider circulation and acceptance among our learned clergy, and until Hebrew Union University begins to graduate men and women who are at least politically neutral, this problem will persist. As noted earlier in this writing, I still have not yet found a rabbi with whom I can feel politically good about, except for Rabbi Daniel Lapin of Seattle, Washington, and that is a long way to travel for Friday and Saturday services.

  4. Will this change make me want to stop watching, listening, and reading the major media? Definitely yes. With your newly opened mind and eyes, you will soon come to realize that there is an unwritten rule among the major media people that liberalism is good and conservatism is bad, and that they slant and report the news accordingly. You will either have to live with no TV blasting in your house, or find the relatively few channels where the news is as least reported in a more neutral fashion. You will also probably find yourself listening more and more to talk radio, where many of your newly discovered political principles are being used by most of the talk show hosts as they explain and interpret the news. You will also quickly abandon the liberal newspaper you are now reading, saving perhaps only the sports section, and begin to subscribe to the authentic conservative and libertarian magazines that are available.

  5. Will this change affect the future of this country'? I certainly hope so. If we could witness the present 80-90% of American Jews who vote liberal today, change to 8090% conservative, the results would be breathtaking. Key states such as California, New York, and Florida would switch permanently into the Republican column with a corresponding decrease in the size and powers of government, and the accompanying increase in personal freedoms. The entire thrust of politics would change to how quickly we can roll back the intrusive powers of government in our lives, and make it more possible for individual citizens to make their own decisions on how to spend their own hard-earned money without Big Brother controlling our every move. With the support of the influential Jewish community, perhaps the current Republican Party will once again have the fortitude to strongly proclaim their basic conservative philosophy, without having to fear broadsides from the liberal media

  6. Will this change affect my feeling about my religion, and could it somehow help me to become a "better Jew"'? Again, I hope so. Rabbi Lapin has written that American Jews have come to substitute secular liberalism to replace their Judaism. If this is true, and I agree that it is for many Jews, then it must follow that if Jews abandon their secular liberalism for conservatism more in harmony with traditional Judaism, they will become "better Jews." How much better will they become, who knows?

  At a minimum, if they will begin to relate their Judaism to their political positions, this will be a major step forward. If they will begin to rethink the positives about Judaism, and I don't necessarily mean the ritual part, this will enhance the meaningfulness of their change. We need to reemphasize some of those positives: the importance of the family and Jewish education; the spirit that God had endowed us with to choose good over evil, life over death; the importance of having been granted the freedom of moral will that permits us to make the proper decisions in life; the value of observing and living by the Commandments; and that it is incumbent upon all Jews to continue to strive for and defend the freedom that we have struggled for throughout our 4,(X))-year history. If some of this accompanies political change, then yes, "better Jews" will result.

  And that is the bottom line for this discussion of possible downsides of change. The answer to the question of whether there are any downsides is "There are no downsides." Political change of American Jews, I believe, will result in a better and freer America, a more politically enlightened group of Jews, and hopefully, a Jewish citizenry that rediscovers some basic truths about their religion with its links to what we identify today as political conservatism.

  CONCLUSION

  Now the reader may well ask, is this writer trying to make the case that if I am a Jew, then I cannot be a political liberal because the two are antithetical to each other? That is a pretty harsh conclusion to draw. And if liberalism is so bad, then can I safely turn to becoming a political conservative, or even a libertarian, and still hope to accomplish my Jewish social goals? The answer to these questions, after reviewing all that has been written here, is yes. Liberalism in its modern form holds to positions that are contrary to Jewish law and tradition, and modern conservatism's positions are very much in tune with Jewish law and tradition. It seems to me that no matter how a liberal may twist or turn or obfuscate, there is no way out from concluding that liberalism and Judaism are like oil and water, they just do not mix!

  Remember one of the main reasons a rabbi wrote me that he was a liberal was that only liberalism could bring about the needed help to those who could not manage for themselves. Two generations of activity have proven that massive government programs do not accomplish what they aim to and that they are contrary to the welfare tradition of Judaism. Welfare in Judaism is to be of a temporary nature only. One should accept even the lowliest of tasks rather than accept the community's help. The highest form of charity is to teach a man a skill or craft or profession so he can earn his own keep. By keeping people dependent upon government assistance, the Jewish principle that we are each responsible for our own actions is diluted and ignored.

  For those concerned that by abandoning their liberalism they will somehow be entering a new, cruel world of conservative meanness, your fears are groundless. Just as the Jewish free market included many acts of charity and mutual assistance, there is little question that today's conservatism also includes the spirit of cooperation and honesty. Our free market economy is built upon voluntary actions between the producers and the consumers of products and services, and produces so much wealth that charitable donations in America are reaching the $200 billion mark annually. Our system appears to be similar to that described by Tamari when he wrote that the pronounced entrepreneurial spirit and the voluntary assumption of the financial burden of Jewish communal welfare are what characterized the Jewish free market economy.

  We are here schooled for life eternal, as the Reverend Edmund Opitz used to say at FEE sponsored seminars. If we are not encouraged to fight our own battles, to overcome obstacles, we may never achieve what
our grand destiny is. Political conservatism, with all its faults, preaches this message as consistently as it can, given the exigencies of modern politics. At the same time, there is now general acceptance of the concept of society providing an economic floor for those people who simply cannot make it on their own. Again Tamari writes that kindness and morality were part of the Jewish market mechanism, with the apparent recognition that the free market was a necessary tool to produce the surpluses that could be given to those in need.

  The fear of anti-Semitism and its alleged connection to the political right is what keeps many Jews in the liberal camp. They continue to overlook the fact that real anti-Semitism can take root only when the powers of government are concentrated in the hands of the few. He who ignores history remains ignorant. Today's liberal doctrine seeks to add more and more powers to government. No matter what the problem is, real or concocted, liberals want to solve it by granting some new or expanded power to government. Are oil prices too high? Do drugs cost too much? Are the schools not teaching their students to read and write? The answer per the liberals is to take some type of government action as the cure. To turn for answers to the marketplace, or to the privatization of previously controlled activities, or in some cases to merely let nature take its course, simply escapes the liberal mind. Government, with all of its "wise men," has to be the answer. This approach again is completely contrary to Jewish law and tradition.

  It is the coercive force of governments of all shapes and varieties that has driven the Jewish people to wander the globe in search of freedom. Finally, they found that freedom here in the United States of America, and Jews should make as their first priority the preservation of that individual freedom. Remember the old story of how to boil a frog. You don't throw it into boiling water, because the frog would immediately jump out. Instead, you put it in tepid water, and gradually turn up the heat until the frog is unaware that it is now a boiled frog. The story is the same regarding the lose of our individual freedom here. It is not lost all at once, but slowly, given the liberal programs to expand the powers of government, we may one day wake up and find out that we have become completely dependent for our daily existence on the good graces of government and the "benevolent" people running it.