Category Archives: Machshava/Jewish Thought

    “Not everything that is thought should be said, not everything that is said should be written, and not everything that is written should be published.” Those sentiments, alternately attributed to Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (the Beit HaLevi) or Rav Yisrael Salanter (the founder of the Mussar movement), are powerful reminders to exercise proper safeguards in publishing, writing, speaking – and especially thinking.

    Exhibit One was President Obama’s whining about the possibility that the US Supreme Court will overturn his signature takeover of the health care industry in the United States. “Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

There are serial untruths in this statement. First, Obama cannot be “confident” at all, or he would not have made such a bizarre, heavy-handed and false declaration. While many have dismissed this brazen attempt at influencing the Court’s decision (make that, Justice Kennedy’s opinion) as nothing of the sort, it has actually been tried before, successfully, and under quite similar circumstances. The New Deal also sought to assert government control over much of the economy, even going so far as having the federal government order kosher butchers to sell only chickens of defined quality to their customers, the famous Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935) in which the Court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional the National Industrial Recovery Act, the linchpin of FDR’s New Deal. Justice Brandeis to FDR aides: “This is the end of this business of centralization, and I want you to go back and tell the president that we’re not going to let this government centralize everything.” That argument should strike a familiar chord today.

With his signature achievement tottering by this and other reversals, FDR after his re-election proposed to pack the Court by adding more justices to the Court, up to a maximum of 15, all of whom would be sympathetic to his causes. What thwarted FDR’s plans was not only the fierce objections of the Democratic Congress, but a change in the vote of one justice – Owen Roberts – and then the retirement of another, allowing FDR to replenish the Court with his ideological compatriots. The line of the day was “A switch in time saves nine,” i.e., the switch in one man’s vote saved the Supreme Court as a bench of nine, and that new Court began embracing extensive government regulation of the private sector.

Second untruth: the “unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law…” Granted, Obama was only an adjunct professor of Constitutional Law and never published anything of note, but even he must know that the Supreme Court has overturned legislation in excess of 150 times since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Indeed, one of the primary functions of the Supreme Court is to review the constitutionality of both state and federal legislation. “Unprecedented”? “Extraordinary”? Hardly.

Third: “overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

This legislation that purports to give the federal government control over 1/6 of the economy was passed with a bare majority – several votes in the House, and one vote in the Senate – and rushed through with back-room procedural maneuvering because by the time the House voted, the votes in the Senate were lacking. Indeed, there has never been such controversial legislation enacted with smaller majorities.

Add to that the obvious and strange definition of “a democratically elected Congress,” only so Obama could characterize the Supreme Court as “unelected.” Well, yes, the Justices are intentionally unelected so as to free themselves from political pressures. Can Obama’s tactic work? Can Justice Kennedy be swayed? Apparently, he has changed his vote in the past from the initial conference when he voted one way to the final decision – when his changed vote in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) saved Roe v. Wade by one – his – vote.

It might happen. And if it does happen, the relationship of the American citizen to his government will fundamentally change. If the government can order people to purchase a private product – health insurance – on the dubious grounds that it is thereby regulating commerce for the good of the public than the government can not only order restaurants to feed the hungry but order the average citizen to help subsidize those restaurants by eating out at least once a week.

The analogy to car insurance fails because only those who drive require auto insurance. The apt analogy would requiring every person – drivers and non-drivers – to pay an automobile insurance fee in order to cover the costs to society of those who drive without insurance.

Was Obama’s challenge to the Court an example of an unguarded thought that passed through the lips without due diligence or a calculated tactic to try to influence the Court after receiving preliminary notice from insiders that he had lost the initial conference vote 5-4? We shall see.

Exhibit Two was the taunt of Democratic operative and veteran liberal Hillary Rosen to Ann Romney that this gallant mother of five “has actually never worked a day in her life.” Ouch. There are few paying jobs that compete with motherhood in the “hard work” department. Even male troglodytes know that. And Rosen followed that arrow with the mealy-mouthed retraction to those (including Mrs. Romney) who were “offended.” In other words, the sentiments remain – it’s the offense caused (not to mention the political fallout) that mandates the apology. A genuine apology would follow the lines of “that was a dumb remark which somehow escaped my lips. I do not believe it, I do not know why I said it, and I am embarrassed for having said it. Obviously, Ann Romney has worked very hard every day of her life, as do all mothers, and their accomplishments in raising well-grounded and decent children is the greatest and most important job in the world. I apologize for stating that “motherhood” is not work.”

Look for the campaign and the Dems to ditch her as soon as it is feasible.

As above, the Baalei Musar even going back to the Talmud noted the slipperiness of words, and how unchecked and unguarded thoughts can cause untold damage. The Sages maintained that we could control our thoughts, and not just our words and our actions. It just takes work and commitment, and practice. Therein lies one of the true measures of perfection.

The difference between Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher is that in his intemperate remarks, Rush broke today’s one inviolate rule of American life while Maher did not. But first a note on the similarities, and they are extraordinary.

It has been well-reported that Rush has been castigated for his name-calling while Maher has been given a free pass. Even administration officials attempted to distinguish the two by terming Maher a “comedian” while Rush a “Republican leader.” Neither vessel holds any water. Rush is a commentator and activist whose policy prescriptions are not heeded as often as his opponents presume.  Maher tries to be a comedian (he’s not on my viewing schedule, so I missed his recent vulgar iterations), but, then again, so did Al Franken. Franken still tries to be a comedian, but he sits in the US Senate. And Maher insists on being taken seriously as a political commentator and thinker.

The truth is that both Rush and Maher are “entertainers” in the sense that both depend on ratings for the survival of their mediums. If Rush were only about politics, then George F. Will could just as well sit behind the microphone; if Maher were only about comedy, Jerry Seinfeld could do a better job. Putting both in the most favorable light possible, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Rush tries to entertain as he informs, and Maher tries to inform as he entertains. They are actually quite similar, except for their messages, which are polar opposites. (Has anyone noticed that if Ma-her is enunciated, it means “Rush” in Hebrew?)

The excuse that Maher degrades public figures while Rush assaulted a private citizen is facile. There was no “private citizen” in the latter case. That 30 year-old law student purposefully made herself into a public figure by volunteering to testify before Congress, giving media interviews, and making herself the poster girl for adult women who feel that other people should pay for the contraception. And who said the ridicule of even political candidates is, or should be, acceptable? Maher’s insults of Republican women are gratuitous, and completely unrelated to their policies and views. It is juvenile behavior at its worst, and seamiest.

Rush’s language was adolescent and offensive – worse because he distracted from the issue and undermined his arguments – but at least there was a point buried in his heavy-handedness. Which was: there is no possible way to perceive the use of contraception by an unmarried woman that is not unchaste (except when medically indicated, which is already provided for free by insurance plans). Whether she has one lover or many is not my business or concern, and Rush’s language assumed the worst, but the basic point remains: her plea was for society to fund her private immorality.

That was the taboo that Rush broke, for which he duly suffered heaps of scorn. In America today, it is considered impolite – even repugnant – to refer to the traditional morality that guided and inspired mankind for millennia. These moral norms included chastity before marriage, having children while married, and remaining married to the same person for the duration of one’s life “until death do they part.”  Such values have not only been banished from public discourse but they are also ridiculed and maligned – of course, to the great detriment of society. The breakdown of marriage and the exponential rise in out-of-wedlock births (the latter often celebrated in the popular culture) have devastated the American family and left children, born in declining number anyway, without parental role models.

This is not to say that Rush or Maher are ideal spokesmen for traditional morality or the joys of family in any event. Neither has any children, Rush has been married several times and Maher has sworn off marriage. But the beauty of objective moral notions is that they retain their force and attractiveness even in theory, even if their proponents fall short of exemplifying the ideal (as they all do). There is a supreme importance in articulating those values because society benefits from having standards, and from producing a behavioral model that can be held up to children as an aspiration.

Maher was feted in the mass media not just because he is a liberal and an unabashed Obama supporter (and it is the height of hypocrisy for Obama to criticize Rush and not Maher, but he must have a million reasons for making the distinction) but because he rejoices in the death of morality and is paid to be one of its undertakers. He is repulsed by the traditional family, and therefore the Palin’s, Bachmann’s and other women who combine material success with healthy and loving home lives are especially vexing to him. They are what he is not, and they have what he will never have – so his vulgar insults come from a different place entirely, but a place with which the mass entertainment industry is most comfortable. Hence, the adulation he receives and the rationalizations offered for him are quite comprehensible.

In America today, as Rush learned, it is simply unacceptable to term someone else’s behavior “immoral.” It is not that morality is meant to be private but rather that it is meant to be personal, subjective and indefinable. The mere enunciation of moral norms is construed as attempts to “impose” one’s morality on another. Advocates of traditional morality are mocked and derided when they are not altogether being accused of trampling on the freedom of expression and behavior of the other side. But the rejection of objective morality is itself a moral “position” of sorts, and its imposition on the rest of us is onerous.

Thus, for example, forcing a Rutgers student to room with a homosexual was considered normal, even edifying, a great way to teach tolerance and open-mindedness. And the tragic consequences of that arrangement belie the normalization of homosexuality in our society. All the attempts to promote acceptance of that lifestyle as a natural choice, as just an alternate lifestyle with its marriages enshrined in law and celebrated in lore, fail to overcome the “shame” test that bedeviled the young man who committed suicide. It is hard to imagine two heterosexuals caught in the same predicament having the same unfortunate reaction; more likely, given the popular culture, they would have been inclined to sell videos of their encounter.

The point is not to castigate the victim, who surely had the right not to have his privacy invaded and whose death is a tragedy, but rather to underscore the great harm engendered by the deterioration of morality. Only in a society that has abandoned all moral notions could the absurdity of having two such individuals rooming together been considered innocuous. And only a society that has cast off all moral restraints could produce such as the roommate, who got his jollies by publicizing and rejoicing in the degradation of other human beings.

For sure, the Internet has exacerbated the decline of standards by normalizing outlandish views and deviant practices and beliefs. It has certainly lowered the discourse by allowing anonymous people to give vent to emotions and opinions heretofore kept to themselves or a coterie of like-minded eccentrics. It has popularized the short-hand slurs that Rush, Maher and others have taken to the airwaves with predictable, and tendentious, results.

But make no mistake that the castigation of Rush and the glorification of Maher is just another round in the cultural wars that are defining America downward. And worse than the verbal affronts of either person is the relentless attack on traditional morality, which many on the left would love to force underground and discredit entirely. That is the real danger that looms in America that, if unchecked, will render it unrecognizable and unsustainable a few decades hence.