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.

    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.”

     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.

     The Secretary of State is the face of American diplomacy, and is responsible for setting and implementing policies that advance American interests across the globe. We should concede that Clinton is not solely responsible, that Obama has in many cases seized the diplomatic initiative himself, that Obama may not (or may) be taking her advice, and that other nations have interests as well that they promote that might be antithetical to the USA’s interests that even the most sophisticated diplomacy cannot reverse. But as she is the responsible party for American diplomacy, her real record deserves scrutiny.

     What is most fascinating is to recall how America’s standing in the world allegedly declined to new depths during the Bush presidency, all of which would be undone by the new, more Third World oriented black president and female Secretary. Yet, America’s popularity in the world is even lower today than when Obama took office.

    What is the Obama diplomatic record for which Hillary’s talents have been so touted?Let’s examine countries and regions.

RUSSIA: Clinton began her diplomacy by handing her counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, a “reset” button. (Actually, she handed him a button that translated from the Russian really meant “overloaded;” no wonder he was puzzled.) Since then Russia has slid back to authoritarianism and even Cold War rhetoric, and US-Russia relations remain strained. If there has been a “reset,” it is to suggest that Russia need not fear or even consider American interests in the region or across the world. And the US’s precipitous withdrawal of its “missile shield” over Eastern Europe dismayed allies that Bush had cultivated, and was perceived by the Russkies as weakness. Consequently, at almost every opportunity, Russia has thwarted joint activities and even diplomacy to rein in Iran, North Korea or other threats. A new cold war looms.  Grade: D.

ISRAEL: The more Obama supporters trumpet how the President has been “Israel’s best friend ever,” the more desperate and detached from reality they sound. Hillary’s involvement has been limited to photo ops, and the infamous 45 minute tongue-lashing she gave to Netanyahu when (how nervy!) the Interior Ministry announced during a Biden visit that tenders for new apartment buildings would be offered for construction in Ramat Shlomo in northern Yerushalayim – to add to the other 50,000 people already living there. Besides the rudeness, the repeated references to “settlements in East Jerusalem” showed ignorance of geography and policy.

The “peace process” could not be deader, and trust between erstwhile allies and friends Israel and the USA is perhaps at an all-time low. The military exercises currently underway are a continuation of past policies, but are more a Pentagon initiative than a Foggy Bottom production. There is no ongoing diplomacy worth its name (probably the best thing for Israel – perhaps the only proof that Clinton is pro-Israel). But both Israel and the PA essentially ignore her.        Grade: D-

ARAB WORLD: Obama’s Cairo speech (June 2009) was roundly ridiculed in the Muslim world, who measure America’s standing by its capacity to pressure Israel to act against Israeli interests. It was quintessential Obama – all words, little substance, much fanfare and symbolism. It would be natural to expect that Clinton played a large role in drafting that speech, but that is unknown.

What is known is Clinton’s role in the comically-named “Arab Spring.” Hillary pronounced Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt a “stable ally” just weeks before he was deposed (echoes of Jimmy Carter’s declaration that the Shah’s Iran was an “island of stability” months before he was toppled). American diplomacy was always late to the game – the US could have either defended and propped up Mubarak as a valuable US ally, or sided with the protesters in the hopes of positively influencing the outcome of the riots. Clinton did neither – siding with Mubarak too long but not providing him any support, and then half-heartedly and diffidently lauding the protesters who are in the process of forming a radical Muslim state.

The US was “leading from behind” in Libya, and is not leading at all in the continuing unrest in Syria. Is it in America’s interest that the entire Muslim world becomes radicalized – that dictators from Tunisia, to Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, etc. be overthrown and replaced by rabid, anti-American fanatics? It must be, because that is what the Obama foreign policy is bringing about. The other possibility is that there is no coherent foreign policy and that the Clinton State Department has not the slightest clue how to advance America’s interests in the region beyond the spouting of clichés. In other words, we are witnessing a

comprehensive and ongoing diplomatic failure.      Grade: D-

IRAQ: Perhaps the greatest failure to date was Clinton’s inability to negotiate a continuation to the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq that necessitated America’s withdrawal of most of its military forces from that country – albeit, fulfilling an Obama campaign promise. But Iraq has already descended into the mass violence that was predictable, has further divided that already-splintered society, and given Iran a precious opening. Simply put, the US currently has few resources through which it can protect its interests and advance its diplomacy in Iraq. That is a failure whose consequences are not yet fully known.                 Grade:  D+

IRAN: Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been slowed, not thwarted, and slowed only through the Stuxnet virus that set them back a year and the untimely demise of several nuclear scientists who apparently contracted car-bomb-itis. The steady drumbeat of “sanctions,” “harsh sanctions,” and then “severe sanctions,” and most recently “really, really, tough sanctions” have failed to dissuade Iran, which, after all, is a dictatorship not responsive to its people’s economic woes. Most egregious was the abject failure of American diplomacy to support the nascent revolution in Iran in 2009 that was summarily crushed. There was not even an expression of support for the rebellion, much less material aid, something that was noticed and lamented openly by the protesters. The Obama administration goal seems to be just to stop Israel from doing anything, and then proclaiming that we will learn to live with a radical-Islamic bomb. One hopes there is some movement behind the scenes – an October surprise? – but I would not hold my breath for any American strike.                Grade: F

AFGHANISTAN, PAKISTAN and other STANS: These have been such troubled alliances for the US for quite some time that one would be reluctant to attribute any diplomatic failures to Obama/Clinton – except for the fact that Obama campaigned on the premise that only he could establish warmer relations with these countries that are, unfortunately, primitive and hostile, but critical in the sense that they have been used for staging grounds for aggressive actions against the United States. But the failures have been manifest. Kudos to Obama for defying Pakistani sovereignty and killing bin Laden, even if the hand-wringing over the prelude to that strike was over-the –top. But that relationship is awkward and troubled, and if Obama/Clinton have not made it worse, they have certainly not made it better.

And the American’s foray into brokering negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban – the original hosts of al-Qaeda – is a grotesque admission of failure, even notwithstanding the unreliability of Hamid Karzai as an ally. Negotiations? The point was to defeat the Taliban. That was the original goal of the war of President Bush; that was the “good war” that Obama promised to wage until a successful conclusion. This is an abandonment of responsibility for which we will all eventually pay a steep price. Where is Hillary?                  Grade: D

ASIA:  North Korea’s nuclear ambitions are proceeding apace, even as it transitioned from Kim Jung Il to Kim Jung Dead. China – all the overheated rhetoric notwithstanding – is today a leading creditor of the United States, made even stronger by Obama’s borrowing trillions from the Chinese to partially pay for his social programs. (Repayment is impossible.) But the US capacity to influence or pressure the Chinese, or to more closely coordinate the diplomacy of the two countries, is greatly diminished.   Grade: C-

LATIN AMERICA:  Obama’s embrace of Hugo Chavez was laughed off by that tin pot dictator, who has been even more derisive of Obama than he was of George W. Bush. The left-wing strongmen of Latin America have been untroubled US diplomacy, and their outreach to Iran (and vice versa) should be worrisome to those who live in the Western hemisphere.      Grade: C-
   ALLIES: Obama (and this cannot be completely laid at Clinton’s doorstep, although she still is responsible) began his tenure looking to transform America’s relationship with its traditional allies. He succeeded – angering in succession the British, the Israelis, the Poles and the Czechs, the Australians, and most recently the Canadians (delaying the Keystone pipeline deal). There is no ally of the US with whom relations have improved during the last three years, and none with whom relations have not deteriorated. The interests of all those countries still remain somewhat aligned, so the fallout is not that great and recovery under a new administration likely – but the world has suffered as a result of America’s decline from superpower influence to one nation among many.              Grade:  C-

The major events of American diplomacy in the last three years have been Obama’s, good or bad (mostly bad). Hillary Clinton has played a subordinate role to the extent she has played any role at all. Again, while not all failures can be attributed to her alone, it is difficult to think of a single achievement that merits the accolades for her performance as Secretary of State. She does give speeches, still smiles and giggles at the wrong times – especially in answering uncomfortable questions – and clearly is not fully control of American foreign policy. And certainly, the US’s ability to influence other nations is determined by those nations’ interests and not exclusively American wishes. But the US’s unreliability as an ally, and its unwillingness to use force as a tool of diplomacy, has greatly marginalized America’s influence and weakened its power in the world. And that is a failure of both policy and diplomacy.

Evidently, Hillary Clinton is being graded on a curve.  And by the standards of the Obama White House, she is due for a promotion.

Yet, we occasionally read these days of “Orthodox” Jews who molest, steal, rob, murder, assault, spit and curse at women and little children, set fire to businesses they disfavor for one reason or another, eschew self-support, brawl, intimidate and terrorize other Jews, or are otherwise genuinely disagreeable people. So what is it that makes those people “Orthodox,” or, even holier in the public mind, “ultra-Orthodox”?

The costume they wear.

It is a mistake that is made not only by a hostile media but also by the Jewish public, including the religious Jewish public. To our detriment, we define people by their costumes – e.g., long black coats, white shirts, beards and sometimes peyot – and we ourselves create expectations of conduct based on the costume that is being worn, as if the costume necessarily penetrates to the core of the individual and can somehow mold his character and classify his spiritual state – as if the costume really means anything at all.

If the events in Bet Shemesh or elsewhere in Israel rectify that mistake once and for all, some unanticipated good would have emerged from the contentiousness.

This is more than simply stating that any “Orthodox” Jew who sins is by definition not an “Orthodox Jew.” In truth, that statement is flawed and illogical, because all people sin; the truly “Orthodox” Jew might be one of the few who still actually believe in sin – stumbling before the divine mandate – and still seek to eradicate it by perfecting himself and struggling with his nature.

But the Torah Jew is defined by a core set of beliefs, principles and religious practices. One who subscribes to that core set is Orthodox notwithstanding any personal failings he has, failings which according to the Torah he must strive to reduce and diminish. No Jew – Rabbi or layman – is allowed to carve for himself exemptions from any mitzva. That is why deviations like the female rabbi, the dilution of the bans on homosexuality, the purported officiation by an “Orthodox” rabbi at a same-sex wedding, the relentless search for obscure leniencies in order to rationalize improper conduct, and other such anomalies drew such swift and heated reactions from the mainstream Orthodox world. The violent and criminal excesses in Israel have drawn similar rebukes but the thought still lingers: why do we even expect decorous and appropriate conduct from people who are perceived as thugs even within their own community, and who have literally threatened with violence some who would criticize them publicly? Because of the costume they wear.

Many of the brutes of Bet Shemesh have been widely identified as part of the sect known as Toldos Aharon (Reb Arele’s Chasidim).* The thumbnail sketch by which they are known always includes the declaration that they “deny the legitimacy of the State of Israel,” which in today’s world should be – and largely is – identical to being a member of the Flat Earth Society. They are “devoted to the study of Torah,” reputedly. Really ? What is the nature of their Torah study ? Are they Brisker thinkers, analytical and questioning, or are they more akin to another Chasidic sect, whose rebbe famously discouraged learning Torah b’iyun (in depth) because he claimed such distances the student from Divine service ? (That rebbi preferred a superficial and speedy reading of the words of the Gemara as the ideal form of Talmud Torah. And it shows.)

But what most identifies Toldos Aharon is…their costume. This, from Wikipedia: “In Jerusalem, married men wear white and grey “Zebra” coats during the week and golden bekishes/Caftan (coats) on Shabbos. Toldos Aharon and Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok are the only groups where boys aged 13 and older (bar mitzvah) wear the golden coat and a shtreimel, as married men do; however, married men can be differentiated by their white socks, while the unmarried boys wear black socks. In other Hasidic groups, only married men wear a shtreimel. All boys and men wear a traditional Jerusalemite white yarmulke. Unmarried boys wear a regular black coat with attached belt on weekdays, unlike the married men, who wear the “Zebra” style coat.”

Does any of this sartorial splendor have the slightest connection to Torah, to Orthodoxy, to living a complete Jewish life, to true divine service ? Memo to real world: there is no such concept as authentic Jewish dress. The Gemara (Shabbat 113a) states that Rav Yochanan would call his clothing “the things that honor me” (mechabduti) – but the Gemara does not see fit to even describe his clothing in the slightest fashion. Jewish dress is dignified and distinguished, clean and neat.  We are especially obligated to wear special and beautiful clothing throughout Shabbat (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 262:2-3). But beyond the tzitzit and the kippa for men, and modesty for all, there is no such thing as Jewish dress, the prevalence of contrary popular opinion notwithstanding. We are never told what Moshe, Ezra, Rabbi Akiva or the Rambam wore, and we are informed that one reason the Jews merited redemption from Egyptian because “they did not change their garb” (i.e., they did not adopt Egyptian styles) – but we are never informed what kind of clothing they did wear. Why ? Because it doesn’t matter one whit.

A sect that obsesses so much on clothing that it distinguishes the married and the unmarried by the type of socks they wear, and insists that everyone wear the same two coats, is not practicing a form of Judaism, in that respect, that is either traditional or brings honor and glory to the Creator. It is a practice that is not designed to induce others to gush about what a “wise and understanding people” we are. They are rather fabricating artificial distinctions between Jews – likely in order to foster cohesion within their small group, ward off outsiders, and better exercise mind control over their adherents. It is no wonder that such a group is not responsive to any known Rabbinic authority – not even the Edah HaChareidis – nor is it any surprise that the sect’s deviations from Judaism can be so repugnant to all Jews and all civilized people.  Surely there is more to prepare for in marriage than simply the acquisition of different color socks.

One can search in vain the Torah, the Talmud, the Rambam, the Shulchan Aruch and the classic works of our modern era for any guidelines similar to what appears above. If these hooligans wore modern garb, we would not hesitate for a moment to denounce them, to agonize over how it is they left the derech, over the failings of their parenting and education, and probably over the high cost of tuition and the toll joblessness is taking on the Jewish family. That the reaction of many to this criminal behavior is less shrill is attributable to but one cause: the costume. For some odd reason, we expect more.

We assume the costume mandates fidelity to halacha and engenders considerate and refined conduct. It doesn’t. It is unrelated. It is irrelevant to spirituality. It says nothing – nothing – about a person’s religiosity. I have dealt several times with conversion candidates who insisted on wearing Chasidic dress – who had beards, peyot, long black coats, white shirts, would never wear a tie, and wouldn’t even hold from the eruv – but they were still non-Jews. In the shuls where they davened while studying for conversion, members wondered why these frum-looking men never accepted kibbudim (honors). They didn’t, for one reason: they were not yet Jews. They just thought they were wearing the costume of Jews.

All the lamenting and hand-wringing is partially warranted, and partially misplaced. Partially warranted because we have for too long tolerated discourteous, larcenous and vicious conduct among people who self-identify because of their “dress” as religious Jews – the consistent rudeness, the unseemly “bargaining” that occurs when a bill is due, and, as one extreme example, the recent arson at Manny’s. (Manny’s is a popular religious book store in Me’ah She’arim that carried a great variety of sefarim –  including mine – that was targeted by similar violent groups for carrying “disapproved books.” The store was set on fire a few months ago, and the owners largely caved to the pressure.) None of that is “Orthodox” behavior in the slightest. And it is partially misplaced because we play the game by their rules when we gauge people’s spiritual potential – or even spiritual level – based of the coat, hat, yarmulke, shoes, socks, shirt, pants or belt that they wear. It not only sounds insane, but it is insane, and it should be stopped. No one is more religious because he wears black or less religious because he wears blue or brown.

We would never consider people who habitually violate Shabbat, Kashrut, etc. as Orthodox. We should never consider people who are routinely brutal and abusive, or have disdain – even hatred – for all other Jews outside their small sect – as Orthodox either. They embrace certain Mitzvot and dismiss others, as well as ignore fundamental Jewish values. Certainly – traditional disclaimer – these goons are but a miniscule, atypical, unrepresentative, extremist, outlier group unrelated to the greater Charedi community that is only now awakening to the dangers within.

Nonetheless, even the greater community would benefit if they too began to de-emphasize the “costume” as at all meaningful or indicative of anything substantive. The Sages state (see Tosafot, Shabbat 49a) that the custom to wear tefilin the entire day lapsed because of the “deceivers.” (One who wore tefillin all day was reputed to be trustworthy, until the thieves learned that trick and used their “tefillin” to swindle others.) Those who reduce Judaism to externals necessarily exaggerate the importance of the costume, and naturally provoke those common misperceptions that cause the Ultra-Distorters to be deemed “Ultra-Orthodox.”

Would we make great progress in the maturation of the Jewish world if a blue suit occasionally appeared in the Charedi or Yeshivish wardrobe ? Perhaps. But we would certainly undo the inferences that attach to certain types of dress that leave many Orthodox Jews wrongly embarrassed and ashamed of the behavior of “people like us.” They are not like us. We must love them as we would any wayward Jew, and rebuke them as we would any wayward Jew. Even wayward Jews wear costumes.

Then we can promulgate the new fashion styles – the new uniform – of the Torah Jew, where beauty, righteousness and piety are determined by what is inside – not what is on the outside – by deeds and Torah commitment and not by appearances.

May we never again hear someone say that “X looks frum.” No one can “look” frum; one can only “be” frum, which itself is not as admirable as being erliche. That lack of sophistication is atrocious, embarrassing, and corrosive to Jewish life and distorts the Torah beyond recognition. We know better than that, and we are better than that. In a free society, anyone can dress exactly like others or unlike others if he so chooses. But it says nothing about their values, only about their identification with one group or another. We should stop trusting people simply because they don black coats, black hats, and wear beards – or, for that matter, kippot serugot. All are costumes. None convey any real truths about the real person.

The true measure of every Jew – and every person – is always within.

RSP- For another perspective on this issue, please read the following at: http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/12/29/welcoming-the-charedi-spring/#ixzz1iP31ZbUB

*I have seen one report attributing the violence to Toldos Aharon adherents, and another that Toldos Aharon is uninvolved. If they are indeed uninvolved, then I retract the reference to them and apologize. – RSP

    Indeed, these caucuses are not even real elections. Rather than enter a polling booth and cast a secret ballot as normal voters do, Iowans gather in various locations across their state (churches, schools, even homes), discuss the nominees and other concerns, divide up into various groups, write the name of their preferred candidate on slips of paper which are then collected and tallied. The “results” are not binding, and actual delegates are chosen at county conventions later in the year based on – or not based on (!) – the “results” from these caucuses. In terms of actually choosing a president, these results do not matter in the real world but only in the media world that is only capable of reporting winners and losers but little else of substance. The horse race becomes the be-all, end-all of this process.

And when the delegates are finally selected months from now, they will total a whopping 1% of all the delegates at the Republican Convention. That is because Iowa is a small state, with a population of about three million people and whose largest city – Des Moines – has, roughly, just five times the population of Teaneck, New Jersey. Iowa is also not very representative of the rest of the country – overwhelmingly white, rural (although the population is today more clustered in urban areas), and evangelical – not that there is anything wrong with any of those, or with Iowa itself (which, after all, gave us the “Field of Dreams”).

And, if Iowans are extremely enthusiastic about the caucuses, approximately 100,000 people will take part – meaning a winner who receives 25-26% of the vote will garner the support of some 25-26,000 people, smashing his defeated opponents by…oh, 2000 votes ? Perhaps even 4000 votes ? The also-ran who winds up in fourth place and is dismissed by the media as dead and buried can trail the triumphant victor by 5000 votes. Does that make any sense at all – that a country of 310,000,000 people can write off credible candidates for the presidency because they lost in Iowa by a handful of votes? No – it makes no sense at all.

History bears this out. If Iowa’s choices had any impact on the rest of the nation, we would have enjoyed Presidents Huckabee and Dole (even Pat Robertson attracted votes than George H.W. Bush did in 1988), never heard of Ronald Reagan again, and suffered through Presidents Harkin (76% in 1992, the most ever of any candidate!) and Gephardt. Bill Clinton received the passionate support of 3% of Iowans in 1992.

The Iowa results do serve a purpose of winnowing the candidates (strangely, Tim Pawlenty was long gone two Iowa corn harvests ago). But should he have left the race so early, before even a single vote was cast? Should a Bachmann, a Gingrich, or a Perry drop out simply because they trailed in this non-binding vote by a few thousand people?  Does a strong Rick Santorum finish mean anything more than in the peculiar demographics of Iowa he struck a receptive chord ? I would hope they would all continue regardless of the outcome here. Does a Ron Paul “victory” mean that he has any real support in more representative or diverse states, or would he just be this year’s Ed Muskie ? And far fewer Iowans participate in the caucuses than vote in the elections as it requires a much greater commitment of time than simply voting and occurs during the winter season when the weather can be unduly harsh in the American heartland. Turnout is key, but distorts rather than clarifies outcomes.

For sure, a Mitt Romney victory will vindicate his strategy of de-emphasizing Iowa this time around. During the last election cycle, Romney poured boatloads of money and spent an enormous amount of time campaigning in Iowa, finishing second and scarring his chances of ultimate victory. In 2011, Romney was rarely seen in Iowa until recently, and low-keyed the state. In fact, Romney may have devised a winning tactic in the last year, generally, by carefully limiting his television appearances and interviews, avoiding the overexposure that these days is bound to make any candidate or president (memo to Obama) look pedestrian and uninspired. The average American voter has gotten to know Mitt Romney mainly through the debates in which he has performed well, notwithstanding that debating has as much to do with the presidency as swimming does with the Rabbinate.

And from Iowa, it is on to New Hampshire, the “first in the nation primary,” which is unique in that it even less important than Iowa – an even smaller state, if that can be imagined – and therefore plays an even bigger role in the election process. That makes even less sense. The city of San Antonio has more people than the entire state of New Hampshire, New Hampshire is even whiter than Iowa, and it is a state without any sales tax or personal income tax. How it supports itself is less important than understanding why these states’ electoral choices should really matter. It is obvious that these states insist on being first because, if they weren’t, they would not matter at all. Certainly, every vote counts the same, but these votes seem to count more.  Everyone who wishes and is eligible should have a voice, but no voices should be artificially augmented. These are, and the whole process becomes comically misrepresented.

As some have written recently (I recall both Fred Barnes and Daniel Henninger making these points), it makes one long for the days of the smoke-filled rooms. Before there were primaries, caucuses, polls, media favorites and beauty contests, party elders would meet either before or during conventions and nominate candidates they thought could win and could best represent their often diverse interests. Delegates were pledged, controlled and traded. Many of our finest presidents emerged from such a system (unfortunately, so did Buchanan and Harding), and many of those same presidents became independent of their original backers when they assumed the office.

Republicans have a fine group of candidates, almost all of whom would be immense improvements over the Oval Office’s current occupant. But there is a cachet, and strong advantages, to the smoke-filled rooms of the past that produced almost all the presidents through FDR’s time. It enables the country to use the election to focus more on the “what” – what needs to be done to rectify the country’s problems – than simply on the “who” – who wins and who loses, who is up and who is down. It forces voters to concentrate on policy and not personality or appearance – most Americans in the first century and more of American politics neither heard a president speak nor knew what he looked like.

And it would end the absurd spectacle of having potential presidents riding tractors in Iowa or snowmobiles in New Hampshire to prove their presidential credentials. Of course, like many things in life, what should happen will not happen, if only because – in this matter, at least – the states don’t want it, the media opposes it, and the whimsy of democracy demands it.

Who knows ? Perhaps one of the candidates here will win 30% (!) of the Iowan vote, and by virtue of his landslide victory – a margin of maybe 6000 votes – he will become the clear frontrunner and coast to victory in November 2012.

P.S. Here’s a better way: Have two separate dates for the primaries  – one in February for eastern and southern states, and one in March for northern and western states – instead of staggering them week after week. Then, let delegates be approtioned according to votes, not winner-take-all. This way, each candidate will receive the attention he or she deserves, even if trailing, and will be a factor in the final decision. The trailing candidate’s support will have to be earned by the frontrunner, making for a stronger party and a stronger candidate.

Of course, it is too late for this cycle, but a candidate like Mitt Romney, who will likely finish in the top two or three in every state, would benefit from such a system, as his support would clearly be more widespread. And if the VP nominee was the runner-up, so be it. That might incline all the candidates to avoid scorched-earth campaigning that destroys each other and only benefits the incumbent.

    Concludes our writer: “There is only one small difference. The Levites were acting under God’s direct command, whereas Matityahu was acting on his own religious zeal and certitude. While we see God’s hand working through the Maccabees, and while were it not for Matityahu’s rebellion the miracle of Chanukah never would have happened, we do not have to endorse this initial act of killing another Jew who was violating the Law. We do not have to endorse an approach that turns a tzaddik into a kanai, a zealot.”

      At least he doesn’t go so far as to turn Matityahu into a rasha, an evildoer, but merely, a zealot. But he was a zealot, as were his sons, and that is why they were successful, and why we celebrate Chanuka until today.

     The linguistic acrobatics performed here are worthy of a circus act. “Were it not for Matityahu’s rebellion, the miracle of Chanuka never would have happened,” so the rebellion ostensibly was a good thing. But “we do not have to endorse this initial act of killing,” because apparently it was a bad thing. But if it was a bad thing, he shouldn’t have done it; but if he didn’t do it, there might not have been a rebellion – after all, “the initial act of killing” was the rebellion. Hmmm…quite a predicament: how can we make Chanuka palatable to the religious left, since it seems to be rooted in many doctrines that are anathema to the religious left: objective truth, moral certitude, justified violence, fierce nationalism and religious zeal. That is quite a predicament.

      Perhaps the rabbi has in mind that Matityahu should have led non-violent rallies against the enemy, written some nasty letters to the editor, negotiated peace with the Syrian conquerors, or –  perhaps even better – allowed himself to be killed while not-resisting, so that 2250 years later liberal Jews would not have to be embarrassed by his actions which only serve to ruin their celebrations of Chanuka. How short-sighted of Matityahu…

     Matityahu and his sons did not believe in religious freedom, or in pluralism, or in peace with the invader, or in sharing the land of Israel with foreigners. They believed in the absolute truth of Torah, in the sanctity of mitzvot, and in an uncompromising loyalty to the Creator, and they were willing to die for their beliefs. And almost all of them did die for their beliefs, including the most famous son of Matityahu, Yehuda HaMaccabee, who was killed in battle not long after the Menora miracle of Chanuka took place.

    It must be painful to celebrate a festival that is repeatedly mentioned in our prayers with a passage that begins “in the days of Matityahu,” and then to have to read approvingly how they “stood against the evil Greek kingdom that attempted to cause them to forget the Torah and to cause them to stray from the statutes of Your will.” It must be even more painful to be forced to recall three times a day that “You, in Your abundant compassion, stood with them in their time of travail,” and with His help they prevailed over their enemies.

    How to avoid such pain, or such cognitive dissonance between the real Chanuka and the contrived Chanuka ? Our writer: “We choose what to remember, and we choose how to see God in the world.” That is to say, since we are troubled (sometimes rightfully so) by religious certitude, arrogance and zealotry, we will eliminate those postures from our celebration of Chanuka, notwithstanding that without those, there is no Chanuka. So he chooses to focus on the miracle of the oil (unmentioned in the Chanuka prayer “al hanissim”) rather than on the rebellion and the military victory that the miracle of the Menora only came to ratify – to confirm that all aspects of Chanuka were the handiwork of G-d.

     The psychological disconnect of Chanuka from modern, liberal sensibilities results from the Maccabim’s rejection of democracy (they were the “few against the many”), humanism (they were the “pure against the impure”), moral relativism (they were the “righteous against the wicked”), pluralism (they were “the diligent students of Torah against the wanton violators”), and reason (they were the “weak against the strong”). All the pillars of the liberal Jew wobble each time the name Matityahu is mentioned, and each time the miracle of Chanuka is commemorated amid feasting and rejoicing, the lighting of the Menorah and the singing of Hallel.

     Of course, there is always a real choice for every Jew – a choice not to try to force the round peg of Torah into the square hole of modern liberalism. There is always a choice – to conform our ideas to those of the Torah, and not try to distort the Torah so they it conforms to our predilections. There is even a choice to re-think cherished assumptions, primarily that good and evil, morality and immorality, and right and wrong, are determined not by the editorial pages of the New York Times but only by the Torah.

     The subtle attempt to link Matityahu’s “extremism” with the evildoers of Bet Shemesh fails, except to the extent that any disfavored violence should be attributed to disfavored people. The Ultra-Distorters who spit on little girls are not Matityahu reincarnate because their motivations are impure and repugnant, and their sexual hang-ups both bizarre and un-Jewish. Their lifestyle and values, such as they are, reflect an obscene failure of education, upbringing and Torah knowledge. The simplest solution would be to imprison them where they can be kept apart from decent society. They are too easy a target even to criticize – but not a rightist fringe of Jewish life; there is nothing “right” about them – and they have few defenders of any standing in the Rabbinical or Jewish world.

       But Chanuka celebrates certainty. It is why we have survived many cruel and harsh enemies, and even survived many pleasant-sounding notions that are really the death knell of Jewish life. Jewish nationalism is not restricted to jingoistic expressions of greatness but is designed to cultivate a nation that will better the world and be a source of blessing for the entire planet. The celebration of Chanuka internalizes that objective and advances that goal – of pride and accomplishment, of purposeful survival, of righteousness and faith, of self-sacrifice and intense dedication to Torah – and to true Jewish values.

     So thank you, Matityahu and family, and happy Chanuka to all.

Moreover, the Rambam continues that “the mitzva of Ner Chanuka is most precious (chaviva hi ad me’od) and one has to be extremely careful in order to inform others of the miracle, and to expand on it in praise and thanksgiving to G-d.”

But why is this particular mitzva so precious ? There are other mitzvot that we have that also purport to publicize miracles – most famously the reading of the Megila and the drinking of four cups of wine on Pesach. In neither place does Rambam call those mitzvot precious – so why does he use that term only in reference to Ner Chanuka ? And why do we say of the Chanuka candles that they are “holy” – what’s so holy about Ner Chanuka ?

And one other, fundamental question: Why Chanuka ? Why do we commemorate ancient but short-lived victories ? The  Chashmonaim had their moment and served a valuable function 22 centuries ago, but they disappeared 20 centuries ago. The monarchy they established was a fleeting phenomenon in Jewish history, and the Mikdash they lovingly rededicated was destroyed two centuries later  – so why celebrate their achievements that have long ago been dimmed by history ?

Rav Soloveitchik zt”l explained by citing the Gemara Shabbat (22b) that the Menorah in the Mikdash served only one purpose: “it was evidence that the Divine Presence rests on the Jewish people.” So, too, the Rav said, Ner Chanuka is a symbol of G-d’s enduring presence among the Jewish people in every age and in every location in the world. In essence, in the absence of the Mikdash, Ner Chanuka is the means by which we demonstrate every year that we are the Chosen People.

That was one of the primary clashes between the Jews and the Hellenists. The latter maintained that the Jewish people had to renounce any notion of chosenness, to them a cause of Jew-hatred that we ourselves provoked. They argued that we were just like everyone else, and the very concept of a “chosen” people was repugnant to their modern sensibilities.

It still is. Of course, the early Christians claimed for themselves the mantle of the New Israel, but it fascinating that the early Americans did the same. The Pilgrims called themselves New Israel, sprinkled the colonies liberally with biblical names, and saw America as the “Promised Land.” Benjamin Franklin even wanted the Great Seal of the US to depict the crossing of the Red Sea, and Thomas Jefferson thought a better image was the Israelites in the wilderness being led by a pillar of fire and a cloud. (Instead, they chose the bald eagle and other symbols.)

Nonetheless, all this imagery – and the idea of a “manifest destiny” – fed the notion of American exceptionalism, which, sad to say, even high-ranking American politicians have repudiated of late. And even Jews are uncomfortable with the concept of an “am hanivchar.”. One of my putative colleagues on the far left fringe of the Orthodox rabbinate not long ago described the notion of chosenness as “a moment of imperfection in G-d’s creation and decision-making.” It is “problematic” to single out one people for leadership. Hmmm…well, someone’s imperfect.

The publicizing of Chanuka is not merely a reminder of the miracle of Chanuka and the salvation of Israel from our enemies, but primarily proof that the divine presence rests on the people of Israel. Our relationship with G-d is based on two components – our acceptance of

G-d’s oneness and the special character of the descendants of Avraham. That’s why the Rambam says the mitzvah is “to demonstrate and publicize the miracle” – to demonstrate what is already known but also to reveal what is not widely known, or widely accepted: to explain why we fought then, why we fight today, what G-d expects of us, and what is His vision for mankind.

And that is why the Ner Chanuka is a “very precious Mitzva,” treasured and cherished, and why these flames are holy, set aside not to use but to examine, understand, and investigate this unique phenomenon of an eternal people and its relationship to the Creator. Megila and the four cups on Pesach recall a particular event – Chanuka is more than that: it is a celebration of our unique relationship with G-d that has never faltered and that transcends time and space.

Thus, after the victory, the Chashmonaim endeavored to formalize the notion of the chosen people in halacha – reinforcing the ban on intermarriage, and adding to the laws of purity and impurity – all of which served to stem the tidal wave of assimilation in those days, and serves as a model for our time as well. That is the Chanuka that deserves celebration every year. It is not just the miracles of old, but His loving embrace that reminds us then and now that redemption comes not through might or power but through G-d’s spirit, and our fidelity to that spirit.