Author Archives: Rabbi

War on Religion

Posted on February 3, 2012 | 1 Comment

     Republicans were handed an unexpected gift this week when the Obama administration overreached and mandated – as part of its health care law – that Catholic organizations provide to their employees insurance coverage for several activities or products that are anathema to the Church – contraception, aborting drugs and sterilization. The churches were exempt – but not Catholic hospitals and charities – and the administration denied their edict applies to the abortion-inducing drugs – but no matter. Catholics were up in arms, precipitating the mass reading (forgive the pun) by priests in churches last Sunday of both the decree and the harsh, negative response of the Catholic bishops to the Obama diktat.

   One might recall that President Obama bought the last several votes he needed to pass his health coverage bill from Catholic Democrat Congressmen by assuring them that Catholic organizations would be exempt from these mandates. (He now reiterates that he meant churches and schools but not other organizations. The Congressmen now feel duped. Shame on them anyway.) Many Catholic leaders have vowed civil disobedience – just refusing to obey the law and its mandates. And the law itself, whose constitutionality will be heard next month in the US Supreme Court, should be challenged again because the hundreds of waivers only provided to companies favored by the administration create an unbalanced and unfair application of the law in any event.

Only true believers would seek to antagonize an entire voting bloc in an election year, and the Obama administration – the radical left of American life – perceives this issue as one of rights rather than morality or religion. Certainly, this decree panders to the feminist-left for whom abortion rights are a sacrament. But more importantly, Obama and his minions are in the vanguard of those who in the recent past have succeeded in the “privatization of morality,” in Melanie Philips’ felicitous phrase. They passionately reject the notion that religion, a divine-based morality that is actualized through divinely-inspired law, has any real validity or should be accorded any respect or deference in the modern era. They see it as archaic, backward, and the precipitant of untold wars – mostly true, until the 20th century, whose wars and exterminations were largely the work of the political and atheist left (think Communism and, for the most part, fascism). Nonetheless, to man who is now the measure of all things, one who governs his life and shapes his public policy conclusions based on spiritual insight is deemed repugnant to democratic life. Religion, to this way of thinking, should be relegated to the churches and synagogues until it withers and dies, to be replaced by the new world order of reason and enlightenment. It should certainly have no right to be heard in public matters.

Thus, the administration exercised its tin ear and argued to the Supreme Court (in the recent Hosanna-Tabor case) that a religious school should not have the right to dismiss a math teacher who also performs religious functions but should have to follow the existing labor laws. The Court – this, most divided Court – rejected that argument 9-0, a judicial smack down of epic proportions, ruling that both the First Amendment Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause prohibit the Government from interfering in ministerial decisions. It was the first time in a long time that the Free Exercise clause (prohibiting Congress from making any law prohibiting the “Free Exercise” of religion) was bolstered. Certainly, Obama – adjunct professor of Constitutional Law that he was – should have known this before dispatching his Solicitor General to argue this matter. But the left is often blind to religion, its demands on the faithful and the superiority of its laws –preferring the rule of man.

One need not be Catholic to perceive the devastating effect on religious life that these edicts have (Or might have had, if the decision had gone the other way). Of course, Catholic employees at these institutions never anticipated having coverage for these situations, so it is not as if anything was taken away from them. And it again calls into question the troubling, coercive, heavy hand of government that seeks to micromanage every aspect of our lives – including what health insurance plans must cover. (Why can’t people just choose what they want covered, like from a menu of options? It would dramatically lower health coverage costs, as most people are forced to pay for things they don’t need or want because of these crushing mandates.) But the main effect of the war on religion is to sow distrust between religious institutions and government that should not, and need not, exist in American life.

For example, every same-sex marriage law to date bears an exemption for religious institutions. A rabbi need not perform them, nor must a shul host such an event. (Caterers, photographers, orchestras, halls, etc. are not so fortunate and can easily be sued by state “Human Rights Commissions” for refusing to accommodate such events.) But for how long? Personally, I would never trust the application of such a law, which requires only one leftist judge to rule that the “exemption” is “offensive, odious, hateful, racist, etc.” That is one reason – but there are, of course, others – why these laws meet with such resistance by most religious groups. In a society where religious sensitivities are trampled upon, even the ground is not the limit. There is no telling the depths to which society may fall.

The bedrock of American life is its moral core that has been steadily eroded for almost fifty years, leaving in its wake broken or dysfunctional homes, skyrocketing out-of-wedlock births, aimless youth who just want to protest and occupy, absentee fathers and sometimes mothers, and a relentless cycle of poverty and misfortune for millions.

Politicians are not always credible in advocating moral values, but Republicans have a golden opportunity here to convert the Catholic vote, angered as it is by the lack of discipline and heavy-handedness of the administration. They should exploit this blunder, before it is reversed, as it will inevitably be reversed – either through the political system or through the courts. They should remind people of faith that the ideology of the left that consecrates the pursuit of immorality (and frankly, has little use for a religion-based nationalism, on which the State of Israel was founded) is today embodied in the Obama administration and its policies. And those who fight this decree should have the support of the Jewish people as well.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events

The Newt Challenge

Posted on January 27, 2012 | 7 Comments

Newt Gingrich is brilliant, mercurial, temperamental, eloquent, feisty, occasionally nasty, haughty, successful, acerbic, undisciplined, unpredictable and immensely talented. He clearly exceeds in originality all other candidates in this year’s election, and most presidents of the last century. He has an idea for every issue, and sometimes three or four, and a solution to every problem. He is assumed leadership positions wherever he has been and quickly flamed out after initial successes. Where have we seen this dynamic before ?  In baseball.

Newt Gingrich is the Billy Martin of politics.

Billy Martin managed five teams and was successful with each one, most famously with the Yankees from whom he was fired five times. That itself must be a record, and explicit evidence of his hard-driving personality. He brought teams from baseball oblivion to the mountaintop, winning division titles with Minnesota and Detroit, a world championship with the Yankees, and taking Texas from last place to second-place in one season. But he never lasted long in any one job. His peers admired and despised him, his bosses hired and loathed him, and those who knew him best seemed to like him the least.

The similarities are uncanny. Like Martin in baseball, Newt took the Republicans from a position of permanent inferiority in Congress to majority status – and then within a relatively short time offended his supporters and resigned. He took a bad team and made them play well – but could not sustain it for more than several seasons (i.e., two terms). Like Martin, Gingrich is a master manipulator of talent and the press, a strategist par excellence who is always seeing three or four moves ahead of the opposition.

Like Martin, Newt has a healthy sense of paranoia and a narrative of personal struggle and vindication. Like Martin, Newt is averse to admitting mistakes – except when such admissions are politically advantageous – and always feels himself embattled and encircled by the establishment. Like Martin, Newt easily re-invents himself, from job to job, position to position, with his record of immediate success. Like Martin, Newt found himself accused of ethics violations that led to difficulties with his employers. Like Martin, Newt has had serial affairs, although Martin’s wives numbered four in total, one more than the nuptials of Newt.

As such, Newt presents such a clear contrast to Mitt Romney that it is no wonder they are so frequently at odds, and with such vehemence. Romney is almost preternaturally calm and composed, almost always unruffled, and very controlled and deliberate. Newt is the anti-Romney – frequently ruffled, often scruffy in appearance, and constantly agitated about something. Romney is focused on marketing (himself), whereas Newt appears almost uninterested in marketing, preferring the generation of excitement and exhilaration to the details of campaigning (like getting on the ballot in Virginia and Missouri). And Newt generated enthusiasm, similar to that of Ron Paul supporters but much more grounded in reality.

It is Newt’s volatility that endears him to so many – at least at first – and makes him such a compelling contrast to Barack Obama. He is always on the edge, always ready for a good scrum, always ready with a verbal and intellectual comeback to any challenge. There is no question Newt can’t answer, no policy matter he hasn’t thought through, and no confrontation that he will duck. Many salivate at the prospect of Newt debating Obama, which will not only be exciting television, but will so easily distress the thin-skinned Obama. Newt without a note is more articulate than Obama with three Teleprompters. So that would be fun.

But is that what the presidency is supposed to be ? Presidents are never called on to debate anything, so they are meaningless as a measure of presidential performance. And as indicia of presidential success they are even less significant. They are reality TV – in the case of Republicans, a good way for the electorate to familiarize itself with them, even as it seems they are locked in a circular firing squad. (Come next fall, no one will remember or care about anything said in a January debate, and the election will more turn on some as yet unknown factor.) Newt’s strength as a debater is critical to his nominating chances but ultimately inconsequential should he become the president.

Newt’s capacity as an idea-man makes his candidacy so intriguing. Bright thinkers can produce an idea per minute, but many of them half-baked, some dangerous, and still others immensely profound. The last professor type who occupied the White House was Woodrow Wilson, and his musings – on economic policy and foreign affairs – shape America until today, and in a largely negative way. It was Wilson who laid the foundation for the modern welfare state (that was later expanded by FDR and LBJ) and for the US’s role as the world’s policeman. Often, professors are not sensitive to the real-world effects, consequences, or reactions to their suggestions, and simply develop a new idea to replace the previous failure. Thought, like talk, is often cheap when one is in an inconsequential role in an ivory tower, but hazardous when the real world with its real people intrudes on the speculations.

Many of America’s problems are so intractable that only out-of-the-box solutions should be considered. The unfunded liabilities of all the government welfare programs – Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and now Obamacare (may the Supreme Court overturn it) – run into the tens of trillions of dollars. America’s debt – now sixteen trillion dollars and growing (that’s $16,000,000,000,000.00) simply cannot be satisfied conventionally. Obama’s old idea of “tax the rich” – class warfare that depends for its success on two groups, the unintelligent and the recipient of handouts – is not only hackneyed and tired but also an obvious failure. Forget raising the rates on the rich: if Obama confiscated all the assets of every billionaire in the country, it would underwrite his budget for approximately two months – and then it would be gone, along with his class warfare argument.

Newt can make these arguments colorfully and compellingly. But will he flame out, as did Billy Martin again and again ? Will he offend his peers, co-workers and contemporaries even during the primary season ? He seems already to have inspired much opposition from Republicans with a personal animus towards him, an enmity that Romney never engenders even in his opponents.

A Newt Gingrich presidency would be a wild ride. He has already done an immense public service by pointing out the farce of the “peace process” and the vapidity of the Palestinian claims – the “invented people” remark from which he, to his credit, has not backtracked and has even reiterated.

If he is true to the Billy Martin form, Newt will win this election and then be booted out after one term. The difference – and this of course is critical – is that Martin had only one employer with a vote. Newt has to appeal to tens of millions of employers, who will either embrace or reject his voluble, out-sized personality.

→ 7 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events

The Goat

Posted on January 24, 2012 | 2 Comments

    Kyle Williams, please meet Bill Buckner.

    Kyle Williams, by all accounts, had a bad day. The wide receiver and punt returner for the San Francisco 49ers first had the football glance off his knee on a punt, enabling the New York Giants to recover the ball and soon after score. Even worse, in overtime, he fumbled another punt, the Giants again recovered, and a few minutes later, the Giants kicked the winning field goal that landed them in this year’s Super Bowl.

That is a bad day. Ironically, the misplayed balls were both recovered by the same Giant, Devin Thomas. Those, in a nutshell, are the vagaries of football and of life itself, where there are good days and bad days. (Of course, for most people, the good days and bad days are not played out in front of an audience of tens of millions of people.)

Williams was clearly distressed during and after the game, but later said that all his teammates had consoled him, telling him that the loss was not his fault. All the old clichés were trotted out – we win as a team, we lose as a team, no one person is at fault, there was dozens of times when each team could have won or lost (imagine if Lawrence Tynes had missed the winning field goal, like his kicker counterpart on the Ravens missed his game-tying field goal), no one play wins or loses, etc.

There is something quite modern about the reluctance of people to assume responsibility for their own failures, and failures that harm others, and even more modern about the willingness of the group to overlook – at least publicly – the miscues of the individual. But it is more admirable for the individual to stand up and take the blame, to place the onus of defeat or failure – in sports, business, relationships, politics, war, etc. – on himself. Usually, there is more courage in the acceptance of personal responsibility than its denial, and a  lack of true dignity in hiding one’s own malfunctions under the cover of the group.

Did Williams lose the game for the 49ers? Is he to blame? Well, not entirely. It is fair to say that he ensured not that they lost, but that they lost the way they did. Every group effort relies on the contributions of many different individuals, and a breakdown at any point – whether in the backfield, the assembly line or the committee – will jeopardize the effort of the group. And every play presents the possibility of individual negligence – that is why repetition is the numbing, daily routine of the player, the soldier, the musician and others – so their particular role becomes second nature and is performed almost robotically. But whereas the musician does not have to deal with a bouncing trombone or a rolling violin, the athlete (and the soldier) encounters situations that are not easily anticipated, and thus demands immediate reaction in the face of potentially fateful consequences.

The “team effort” mantra is plausible, but not persuasive. As in any game, had San Francisco been more successful in other aspects of the game – third down conversions, for one – then the Williams’ failures would have become just a footnote to the game. But it was his particular blunders that caused the game to unfold the way it did, with the victory of our hometown Giants.

Are we a better society if we attempt to shield people from the logical consequences of their actions, or if we encourage individuals in a group setting not to own up to their personal failings? I think not. We have often been witnesses in recent decades to the almost-comical politician’s admission that “mistakes were made.” Note – not that he made them, would admit them, or even knew about them (even if they were his mistakes); rather than courageously say “I made a mistake,” the passive “mistakes were made” distances the wrongdoer from his own folly and brings innocent others into his orbit of failure. Or, in another example, we often hear these days of the common tripe of politicians grieving with homeowners “victimized” by “deceptive” banking practices that had them borrow money they could never afford to repay – as if the homeowners are not mostly to blame for their over-borrowing. That is where the votes are – the escapees from personal responsibility in their private lives run to vote for the politicians who pander to their immaturity – but neither benefits society.

Certainly, there is no shortage of adults in sports and elsewhere. Tom Brady, in victory but nonetheless, excoriated his poor play yesterday and thanked his defense for bailing him out; Lee Evans of the Ravens dropped the game-winning pass, and sat afterward in tears, clearly aware that his mistake had let down his teammates; and there are others. The aforementioned Bill Buckner was gracious in defeat. And the Talmud records several times that the great Rava lectured in different towns on different topics, and later sent word to his audience: “What I said to you was an error on my part” (Eruvin 104a, Bava Batra 127a, et al) – a complete retraction.

In a more perfect world, people would assume responsibility for misdeeds and misstatements immediately, forthrightly and unconditionally – politicians, parents, rabbis, teachers, athletes, bosses and workers. In fact, such integrity would immediately make our imperfect world a little less imperfect.

The best of all worlds would be an explicit assumption of responsibility on the part of the stumbler, followed by the graciousness of his teammates or co-workers who then assume their share of the outcome. These failures do not make Kyle Williams into a bad person or even into a bad athlete; it just means that he had a bad day. We need not be protected from our bad days – we only need to be protected from not being accountable for them.

To gloss over a bad day or blithely disregard its effects on others is to deprive oneself of the opportunity for redemption and the satisfaction of achievement and success. It transforms our lives into a constant “defensive” mode, always fending off attacks and trying to deflect blame from oneself. Too bad that today’s youthful “my bad!” is almost exclusively reserved for nonsense. There is majesty in the rise from failure to success, but just as much majesty in the admission of failure alone.

So let’s give the final word to President Nixon, who had his share of bad days, and said on the morning of his resignation of the presidency in 1974: “Only when you’ve been in the deepest valley, can you ever know how magnificent it is on top of the highest mountain.”

→ 2 Comments

The Romney Riddle

Posted on January 20, 2012 | 1 Comment

     One would think that a presidential candidate who has been a successful businessman and governor, identifies as a Conservative, is a dedicated husband and father to an attractive, photogenic, drama-free family, is articulate (and, oddly, without a teleprompter!) and cogent in his presentations, and has a range of policy positions that are esteemed by most of his potential electorate, would be wholeheartedly embraced by that segment of the population. Yet, Mitt Romney seems unable to seal the deal, and notwithstanding the South Carolina primary results, it is unlikely that will change in the immediate future although he remains the prohibitive favorite to ultimately win the Republican nomination for president. Why the reluctance?

     The real reason is distressing to admit, so let’s first examine the clichés.

     Romneycare, according to many, remains an albatross, as Obama claimed it (of course, disingenuously) as an inspiration for his own health care debacle in the making. Romneycare included an individual mandate – requiring everyone to maintain health insurance or pay a penalty – as does Obamacare in its current form. But Romney’s arguments are plausible – what a state uses as its model is not necessarily proper for the country as a whole. Massachusetts had particular needs, and the solution, while violative of one’s constitutional rights as they currently understood (and the Court takes up that issue in two months), was geared to a Massachusetts solution. One who does not like that mandate and does not want to spend the money on health insurance can simply move to another state. Many people are already fleeing high tax states like New Jersey (the highest in the nation), New York and California and moving to Florida, Texas and Nevada. So, states have the luxury of experimenting with different programs that, if done on a federal level, might undo the delicate balance of relations between government and citizen, not to mention bankrupt the country in the process. I give Romney a pass on his health-care plan, believe him that he would repeal Obamacare (if the Supreme Court doesn’t beat him to it), and recognize also the inherent limitations under which Romney worked in a far-left state like Massachusetts. Dealing as a Republican governor with an overwhelmingly-Democratic legislature is no easy task; consult Chris Christie, a Romney endorser, for further proof.

     Others point to his shifting positions on issues over the years – abortions, same sex unions, immigration, and who knows what else? Certainly, a change in one’s views is not as significant as a change in one’s values. Normal people do re-think their cherished views from time to time; otherwise, we stop growing and learning. Abortion is a critical area in this genre, because it reflects a value more than just an opinion. Can a person change? Well, there is no shortage of politicians who were anti-abortion and changed to the more politically-expedient liberal view – Al Gore and Bill Clinton are just two examples. That Romney flipped in the other direction may reflect political expedience as well – or what he claims, an evolution of his views as he witnessed the consequences of the pro-abortion culture.

     A few have nastily criticized the Romney’s for looking too perfect. They seem like an all-American family – wholesome, clean-cut, perfect hair, happily-married, children married and producing grandchildren, devoted to their faith, prosperous and white as white can be. There are no personal skeletons as far as one can tell. I visited Salt Lake City and the Mormon center not long ago – and they all look like that, almost cookie-cutter, smiling faces and cheerful demeanors. (Not the city itself, which has one of the highest homicide rates in America.) The term “wholesome” grates on some people, mostly because of their own hang-ups. It shouldn’t. In an era – hey, in a week – in which politicians’ foibles and shortcomings are on full public display, there is something refreshing in the confidence (tenuous though it should be for any human being) that Mitt Romney is the patriarch of a family with good values, and that he lives the good values he espouses.

    The most recent kerfuffle concerned Romney’ successful management of Bain Capital and the enormous profits he generated buying, managing and then selling companies, which is the entire purpose of the private equity market. This attack, generated by Newt Gingrich who should (and does) know better, appeals to the ignorant emotionalists among us but not to anyone who has actually been in business or understands capitalism. Simply put, companies that were bought by Bain would have failed without the investment of capital. Some could not be saved – that is the inherent risk of the private equity market – and so Bain lost money on them. But they made much more money on other companies, maximizing profits for their shareholders and – yes – creating jobs. These were companies that had obviously exhausted traditional sources of capital – no banks would lend them money. But Bain’s successes – Staples, Sports Authority, etc. – speak for themselves.

    Of course, Newt knows better. But he is exhibiting in many ways the stereotypical conduct of many adopted children who keep looking for love and acceptance (sometimes in the wrong place) over and over again and detest any form of rejection. The good news is that Romney was bound to be attacked in this regard by the populist left, the Occupy Wall Street crowd that are a big Obama base (whatever they might say). These rounds have already been fired, and that chamber is now empty. They will certainly re-load and fire again – but the argument will have lost its novelty. And let the election be – as it should – a referendum on capitalism and the role of government. That is a good debate to have in this environment.

      In essence, Romney says the right things in the right way and espouses traditional Republican views. Is he a perfect candidate? Of course not – no candidate is perfect, all are flawed, all commentators on the candidates are also flawed, Obama is certainly flawed and vulnerable, the best and most credentialed candidate doesn’t always win, the American people are not geniuses who never err in their presidential choices, and just because someone wins does not mean he is the best person for the job and will necessarily succeed. So why the hesitation on Romney?

      It is impossible to escape the conclusion that his natural supporters are uncomfortable with his Mormonism. It is sad to say this, but polls have shown that up to 42% of white evangelicals would not vote for a Mormon. More, by a large percentage, would vote for a Jew. Jews don’t realize this, but Mormons are widely considered by mainstream Christians to be non-Christians, and Mormonism is construed as a cult. It has been suggested that Romney’s religion, which he does not wear on his sleeve, is one reason he is reluctant to release his tax returns too early. As a good Mormon, he is likely to tithe, and therefore contribute a sizable amount of his income to his church. To evangelicals – as in South Carolina and much of the South – that would be a red flag.

    For sure, the Constitution bans any religious test for office, but reality usually trumps theory. Rick Santorum, staunch Catholic, typically had one of the classiest answers to a typically-inappropriate media question some months back. “Do you consider Mitt Romney a Christian?” Santorum answered: “It’s none of my business. If he considers himself a Christian, that is good enough for me. Beyond that, it is not my business.” Good answer.

    Jews and Mormons should have a natural affinity. It is fascinating that the Mormon experience borrows heavily from familiar Jewish territory, including their foundational story of persecution, exodus and revelation. Mormons have often felt a closeness to Jews, even if some of their practices – mass conversion of the deceased, the Center on the Mount of Olives – have irritated. It is hard to imagine any Jew who would not vote for Romney because of his religion, but it is also exasperating that many people still maintain a (private) religious test for anyone. Piety is better than secularism, especially piety of the American sort that has always been open, tolerant, and respectful of all faiths.

     As the field narrows further, the choice will become clearer, and a greater comfort level with the eventual candidate will ensue. Gingrich is the man of ideas but of volatile character, Santorum the eager, sincere, up-and-coming striver with traditional values, and Romney – steady, stable, secure, distinguished, successful in all his endeavors to date, and easy to imagine as the next president.

→ 1 Comment