The words of Alexis de Tocqueville from his writing Democracy in America are to the point. "The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd." This was written in the 1840s, and one can almost sense De Tocqueville looking down on us today and saying, "See, I told you so."
Jews must be the "canary in the coal mine" and serve as the warning signal to the American people, that our freedoms are being eroded. Only by changing their political stance, can American Jews carry out this responsibility. We owe it to our fellow citizens, almost in gratitude for our free existence here, to perform this necessary function. Instead, we are too often serving as the "attack dog" in advocating and pursuing new powers for government.
The liberals' drive to eliminate almost all traces of religion in our public life is again opposed to Jewish tradition. Our entire religion is based on observing the Commandments and the laws in our daily lives. As Jews we must try to live as close to those principles as we can. In our zeal to prevent an overwhelming Christian presence, we go overboard the other way and seek to make this country a religion-free society. As Rabbi Lapin has put it, Jews have substituted secular liberalism for their religion in an effort to escape the religious rules of Judaism. The word "secular" is used so often these days that perhaps we forget what its definition is. Secularism is "a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship." I have a suggestion to make. If American Jews want to be "secular" then at least let them be "secular conservatives." That way they will preserve at a minimum, some vestiges of their Jewish religion, because conservatism is so much more in harmony with Judaism than is liberalism. Jews have survived by being true to their heritage and conserving and transmitting the eternal principles of their religion. Thus it has always been and thus it will always be.
Hans Kung in his book, Judaism, quotes a paragraph from Abraham Joshua Heschel's God in Search of Man: "(T)he spirit of Judaism is not the spirit of conformity to American secular society, but above all is the spirit of protest, embodied in the great prophets, against a confusion of the true God with the many earthly, false idols of this society. Also the protest must be made on matters of religion and law. To be a Jew is to renounce allegiance to false gods, to remain free of infatuation with worldly triumphs, and never to succumb to splendour."
Whatever the subject may be-education, healthcare, taxes, abortion, guns, affirmative action, you name it-the liberals are on the wrong side when it comes to aligning their positions with Jewish law and tradition. I'm sure I am not the only one who notices that American Jews when propounding their liberal positions invariably fail to make any connection to our religion as a foundation for their thinking. Or if they do try and make such a link, as with charity or welfare, they fail to give the traditional Jewish principle, that such help is meant to be temporary, and is to be given only if all other attempts by the recipients at making a living have been in vain.
Even with the selection of Orthodox Jew Senator Joseph Lieberman as the vice presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket, the good senator seemed to take particular pains to avoid associating his religious beliefs with his political positions. Oh yes, he is for affirmative action, refusing to call that activity by its correct name, which is "racial preference" or quotas, which Jews have always fought against. School choice for parents is a position that the senator has expressed on occasion previously, but now as the VP candidate to liberal Al Gore, he seemed to be backing away from that stance. For Lieberman to qualify as an authentic liberal, which he does, there has to be a major disconnect between his Orthodox religion and his politics. That is unfortunate, because if a Jew had been named as a VP candidate on the Republican side, we would have undoubtedly seen some real connection between political conservatism and traditional Judaism.
Now the reader may ask, after all these years of Jews being liberals and considering all of the brilliant Jewish writers who have discoursed on this subject, how come you, an unknown semi-retired CPA, should now proclaim himself an expert on the subject and attempt to persuade Jews they must change their political thinking? My answer is, I really do not have an answer. I only know that someone, somehow, must have the passion and the interest to present in one writing as many of the reasons as possible why Jews have become liberals, and as many reasons as possible why they should not be liberals. Fortunately in this blessed nation, we have the freedom as individuals to follow our own instincts in attempting to meet this challenge. Albert Einstein in 1950 wrote, "Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom."
To sum it all up then the question remains, are you really saying that as Jews we must abandon our long-held emotional links to liberalism and move over to the other side of this political divide? This is my answer.
Regardless of what kind of Jew you are, Orthodox, secular, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, or any other variety; whether you believe that Judaism is an individual or a communal religion; whether you believe we were or were not chosen as God's messenger to the rest of this world; whether you believe property rights are secondary to human rights; whether you observe or do not observe most of our rituals; whatever you believe, if you have a modicum of Jewish blood in your veins, either by heritage or through conversion, or by osmosis, you must believe that after our belief in the One and Only God, for Jews, freedom is the most important value of all, and that government exists to protect that freedom and to interfere as little as possible in our lives.
Therefore you must cast off your emotional, familial, or any other historical ties to liberalism, and join those of us Jews who have already freed ourselves from that secular and foreboding philosophy to become enlightened, self-interested, self-disciplined, and motivated voluntarists, or in the current political vernacular, conservative or libertarian or Republictarian.
During the battle for Jerusalem in 70 CE, as reported in Josephus The Jewish War, translated by G.A. Williamson, there was a struggle within the Jewish ranks inside the city. (As usual, the Jews were divided among themselves.) The Zealots were running rampant, taking the law into their own hands, and generally terrorizing the general populace. The balance of the citizens looked for leadership from their high priests. The oldest of the high priests, Ananus, spoke to the people to rally them against the Zealots within, and against the Romans led by Titus outside the walls of Jerusalem.
Josephus reports the speech of Ananus. In part he says to his fellow Jews, "You are plundered without protest, beaten without a murmur, witnesses of murder, without one audible groan... They have seized the strongest place in the City... Will you really wait for the Romans to recover our holy places? Have you really lost the most honorable and deep rooted of our instincts, the longing for freedom? Are we in love with slavery and devoted to our masters as if our fathers had taught us to be doormats... Again and again they fought to the bitter end for independence, defying the might of both Egypt and Persia, rather than take orders from anyone."
It is this freedom, this most honorable and deep-rooted of our instincts in the words of Ananus, that is at risk here in America. Only by containing the growth of government powers may we as Jews be protected from any force that seeks to again make us the sacrificial lamb for society's problems. To those who may say it cannot happen here, I hope and pray it will not, but we can ensure it will never happen through our eternal vigilance. And as a plus to changing our political allegiance is the fact that we will be moving closer to aligning our political positions with traditional Judaism.
To the non-Jews who have always wondered why we Jews have persisted in following the liberal line these past two generations, I hope that this
writing sheds some light on the answer. You can help mightily to bring about this political change by continuing to support Israel with the same devotion that many of you presently do, and to be patient with this "stiffnecked" people whilst this change germinates and eventually blooms.
To those Jews with minds open enough to explore at least the essence of this writing, my hope is that this will lead to further thinking and discovery on your part so you may eventually shed your liberal cloak. To those Jews who are already sympathetic to the views contained herein, I congratulate you and urge you to expand your efforts to carry this message to your own inner circles of family, friends, and associates. To those Jews who are dedicated liberals, and see no reason to change, my condolences to you. Perhaps someday the light will dawn and you will be able to connect your Judaism to your political beliefs. To all others, my thanks for reading these words, and for helping me to fulfill a lifelong journey.
POSTSCRIPT15 DECEMBER 2000
Although the theme of this book is somewhat timeless, the historic presidential election of 7 November 2000 merits some special comments. This was an election that was the closest in over a century, and whose final results were in doubt for thirty-five days. The election exposed some real problems in the election machinery of counting votes, registering, and qualifying voters, and even the design of the election ballot, all matters which receive little attention between elections. I hope there will be some constructive and meaningful changes made before 2004, so that the chance for error and confusion will have been reduced, if not eliminated, and the word "chad" will revert to being just a man's name or a country in Africa.
The relevance of the election to this writing in my opinion is that: it was the first time that a Jew was a candidate for either president or vice president on a major party ticket; Jews continue to vote liberal or Democrat by a huge majority; and there may be some hopeful, still obscure signs, that perhaps American Jews may be beginning to open their minds to changing their political allegiance.
As noted previously in several chapters, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut was chosen by Al Gore to be the vice presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket. Prior to his selection, the senator had earned a favorable reputation from most observers as a man of conviction and integrity. They respected him for living by his Orthodox Jewish principles without hiding or evading them. Even so tough a critic on politicians as nationally syndicated radio talk show host, Don Imus, would fairly gush with praise whenever Senator Lieberman appeared on Imus' morning program. Imus frequently would praise Lieberman as one of the few honest politicians that he knew. Although Lieberman prior to his VP selection was known as somewhat of a maverick among liberal Democrat circles, still he had compiled an 81% favorable voting record according to Democrat standards and was thus part of the liberal establishment.
Al Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee, had personally disapproved of President Bill Clinton's sexual misbehavior. Gore had enjoyed a long, successful marriage with his wife, Tipper, and wanted to be recognized as a solid family man, in contrast to the reputation of Clinton. He knew that he needed to somehow obscure any connection that voters may have between Gore and Clinton, at least in the area of personal morality and behavior. If Gore now chose as his partner the one senator who had gained national attention with his denouncement of Clinton's personal behavior, this would serve as a significant message to the voting public to disassociate Gore from Clinton. (Gore went so far in this separation from Clinton that he restricted Clinton's participation in the campaign to making "cameo" appearances on rare occasions.)
Gore also was aware that among the key, "battleground" states that would decide the election, he could capture Florida with its sizable, retired Jewish population, with the right running mate. With a Jew, and a liberal Jew at that, beside him, this would have to make a positive impact on the Jews of Florida, as well as many Jews in the major cities of America. Any possible downside for selecting Lieberman, such as potential backlash from fringe anti-Semitic groups, was discounted. One Democratic strategist commented that any voters who would turn on Gore because he had a Jew for a running mate would probably never have voted for Gore in the first place.
Thus it can be assumed that these were among the primary reasons Gore selected Lieberman as his running mate. As it turned out, this was a strategically sound decision. Although there are no reliable statistics to prove the point that Lieberman was a "net plus" for Gore, there appeared to be no backlash from any group (black voters sometimes accused of being anti-Semitic voted 93% for Gore), and the amazingly close Florida vote had to be attributed at least in part to Lieberman's presence on the ticket. On a personal basis, I had more than one Jewish friend, previously undecided, who decided to vote for Gore because of Lieberman.
Lieberman proved to be a stout campaigner, and soon swung into line behind Gore on all the major issues. The senator faithfully echoed Gore in the latter's promises to solve all of the nation's problems by simply spending more and more money, and creating more and more government rules and regulations. Lieberman had no hesitation in joining Gore in trashing George Bush's "risky" tax scheme to return part of our tax overpayment back to those who had paid in those excess taxes. To be fair, Lieberman did on occasion attempt to expound on his moral positions, in particular, that our Constitution did not intend to eliminate religion and God from our lives, but was intended only to prevent government from imposing any religion on the people. For this the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) immediately condemned him, and thereafter he seemed to soften those remarks. As a candidate for vice president (in addition to running for re-election as Senator from Connecticut), part of the price Lieberman apparently had to pay for this honor, was to recant all of his previously held, somewhat conservative positions (opposition to affirmative action, approval of school vouchers, changing Social Security, etc.). This led to the disapproval of Lieberman by many of his previous supporters (Imus among them). Still as 7 November 2000 approached the race was too close to call.
As the results came in that night there were some unexpected results. Gore lost his home state of Tennessee, as well as Clinton's home state of Arkansas. Bush failed to win two of the three most important "battleground" states, Michigan and Pennsylvania. As the night wore on, all attention became focused on the state of Florida, with its twenty-five electoral votes, and whose governor was Jeb Bush, brother of George W. Bush, the Republican presidential nominee. If one were to have written a script for this election, he could not have done a more suspenseful job.
First, based on exit interviews with voters, the major media stations called Florida, and in effect the election, for Gore. This tended to discourage many voters in Florida and in the West from voting, Republicans claimed. Hours later the major stations reversed their call and placed it in the undecided column. Then in what seemed to be their final call, they awarded it to Bush, and with that, the election. Just before Gore was about to call Bush to concede, the votes began to pour in from Democrat precincts, and finally late in the evening, the count ended with Florida as too close to call. In the early morning of 8 November, the final machine count left Bush with a narrow lead of less then 1,800 votes out of almost six million votes cast. This close margin necessitated an automatic machine recount, which a few days later still left Bush in the lead by less than 1,000 votes.
What proceeded then need not be detailed here. Continuous legal maneuvering, judges' decisions, judges overruled, armies of attorneys battling, with ultimately the United States Supreme Court rendering, on a five to four decision, the final verdict that Bush's narrow margin of a few hundred votes must be sustained, kept the American public on edge for five weeks. Thus after this historic election, George W. Bush became our forty-third president, and Joseph Lieberman returned to his Senate job, as he had wisely run for both positions in November. So what does this all mean for the political future of American Jews and their voting patterns?
The fact that a Jew was chosen as a nominee
for one of the two top political positions in the country should be viewed as a plus. It should prove the point that to be a Jew, and particularly an Orthodox Jew, is no barrier in these United States to becoming a prominent voice in our national life. That old shibboleth that we must not raise our heads up too high as Jews because we may bring down on our heads the wrath of the Christian majority has definitely been demolished. For this we have Al Gore and Joe Lieberman to thank. It is just too bad that our first Jewish nominee had to be a liberal. Perhaps the next time around we will get a Jewish nominee whose views are more in line with the theme of this writing.
In one sense the fact that roughly 20% of Jews voted for the Republican Bush is encouraging. With a Jew on the Democrat ticket, and with the normal emotional tie between Jews and the Democratic Party, one would have thought that perhaps 90 to 95% of Jews would have voted for Gore. That would have matched the percentage of American black voters, many of whom apparently were so convinced by Jesse Jackson that their rights were going to be taken away from them by Bush, that they surmounted their previous majority for Democrats by voting 93% for Gore!
Why Jews Should Not Be Liberals Page 24