Jewish and Republican

Posted on October 4, 2013 | 11 comments

    Is there any hope for increasing the participation of Jews in the Republican Party? Should there be?

    The Pew Research Study on American Jews released this week presents a stark view of the spiritual lives of our community today. The intermarriage rate is up to 58% and secularism is rampant – all worthy of attention in its time. Politically, 70% of Jews are or lean to the Democrats, while 22% of Jews are or lean to the Republicans. That is completely out of sync with the rest of America, which favors Democrats 49-36%, although other studies show a much closer tally. The Pew findings mirror the election results from 2012, in which Jews favored Obama over Romney by 69-30%.

The gap is enormous.

At a Republican Jewish Coalition forum I moderated last night, two Republicans of note – Ari Fleischer (former Press Secretary to President Bush) and Matt Brooks (longtime head of the RJC) shared their views on the past and future of the Republican Party and its search for support in the Jewish community. Both are seasoned, articulate political professionals, and both defy the media stereotype of Republicans as greedy, heartless oligarchs.

The Jewish vote has not been in play for Republicans for almost a century. Abraham Lincoln was greatly admired by Jews; many actually called him Father Abraham, and some assumed he was Jewish. His greatness and decency steered Jewish votes to his Republican Party. For a half-century after Lincoln’s assassination, the Jewish vote was evenly split, similar to other ethnic groups. That changed abruptly.

The last Republican president who won a majority of the Jewish vote was Warren Gamaliel Harding in the election of 1920. (Actually, a plurality; Harding won 43% of the Jewish vote, to the Democrat James Davis’ 19%. The balance went to the Socialist Eugene V. Debs, who garnered 38% of the Jewish vote while running his campaign from a prison cell.) Debs’ success augured a seismic shift to the far left in Jewish political attitudes and voting patterns. Since then, the Jewish vote for the Democratic candidate has never fallen below 60% and has reached as high as 90%, averaging 79%, with the one outlier the Reagan defeat of Carter in 1980. Even then, Carter received 45% of the Jewish vote to Reagan’s 39%.

The other outlier in the Pew data is the Orthodox support of  the Republican Party. Orthodox Jews are or lean to the Republicans over the Democrats by 57-36% (!), signifying not only a greater identification with the ideas and values of the GOP but also an ever-growing chasm between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jewish communities in lifestyle, attitudes and Jewish identification. As the Orthodox proportion of the Jewish population increases (both through natural growth and through the attrition wrought by the assimilation and intermarriage of the non-Orthodox), the best hope for Republican growth lies in the ongoing secularization of the Jewish people that is robbing the Jewish world of thinking, breathing, practicing and committed Jews. Sadly, what is good for the Republicans is a catastrophe for the Jewish world as a whole.

That point was not raised at last night’s forum, which focused on an analysis of past and future trends as well as current events. Both men decried the inability of the recent Republican nominees to connect with people, real people. Policies that work well in the abstract have to be presented in a way in which real people understand how they will benefit (e.g., from a job rather than a handout), just like failed policies have to be exposed because of their harmful effects to real people and not just as violations of the theories of the Austrian School of Economics. As interesting as those are – all due respect to Friedrich von Hayek and Ludwig von Mises – most people don’t relate to it, but they do relate to the stories about real people.

That failing is on display now – and one other, see below – in the showdown in DC. The Democrats and mainstream media are skilled at portraying the hardships caused to people by the partial shutdown of the government. Offices closed, workers unemployed and tourists inconvenienced at the national parks and monuments are the staples of news coverage. Interestingly, I polled last night’s audience of hundreds and asked how many of them are affected by the government shutdown? Five hands went up. Certainly, we grieve for anyone out of work even temporarily, although that effect will be ameliorated, as in the past, when the workers return to their offices and are reimbursed with all their back pay. Even temporary unemployment is unsettling, as is the need to access some legitimate function of government and to be turned away. It was shocking, though, how few people in that audience felt any effect at all from the government shutdown, ample testimony to the virtues of limited government and the vices of a bloated bureaucracy. Alas, in the Pew survey, Jews prefer a bigger government with more services over a smaller government with fewer services by 54-38%.

Both men emphasized the traditional American values that have always been embraced by the Republicans, and some that have dissipated that must be revived if the Republican Party will continue to be viable. The values of hard work, self-help and personal responsibility have taken a hit in recent years. By the same token, Republicans have to shed the label of being anti-immigrant, an accusation with which they have been bludgeoned for years, and in part of the party, with some justification. Romney’s missteps in this area cost him; the fact that Democrats tarred him unfairly with being a ruthless tycoon who relishes firing people, murdered a woman with cancer, and throws elderly women over cliffs, didn’t help his cause either.

Both recognized that the past emphasis on social issues served more to alienate potential supporters than to attract them, especially among young people. The unresolved problem is that a good segment of the party is motivated by the social issues, and tends to sit out elections rather than vote for a less-than perfect nominee, even though that is a foolish, counterproductive and self-defeating strategy.

Not unexpectedly, the audience was largely disappointed with the Obama presidency, and not only for its failures of policy. The President does not know how to lead – only to criticize and to decree. He feels that he was elected dictator, not president, and so need not negotiate with Republicans on anything. “I won,” period, oblivious to the reality that the Republicans in the House also won, and with a greater share of the vote that Obama received. And the poor messaging of the Republicans fails to educate the public, as in the inability to counter the President’s repeated assertion that the debt ceiling must be raised so “we can pay our bills,” as if borrowing money to pay bills is actually paying bills.

Ronald Reagan negotiated and compromised with Tip O’Neill like Bill Clinton negotiated and compromised with Newt Gingrich in a way that Obama refuses to with John Boehner. In effect, he has drawn a red line; fortunately, Obama’s red lines have been known to fade in the past.

Asked by an audience member about Obama’s attitudes towards Israel, Ari Fleischer replied, incisively, that in contrast to President Bush, Obama does not perceive Israel “as a friend to be supported but as a problem to be managed.” That is why the body language, the earlier iciness, the bad optics and the policies have tended to the negative –and why the fears in Israel are growing of a bogus US-Iran agreement that echoes the failed agreements between the US and North Korea that simply bought time for the North Koreans to complete their nuclear program.

Is there a path to victory for the Republican Party, and a mechanism to increase Jewish support? Parties out of power tend to look more fractious and unruly. It was Will Rogers who said, back when the Democrats were on the presidential outs, “I belong to no organized political party. I am a Democrat.”

Today’s Republicans can relate. The cacophony of voices, disparate ideas and solutions, and the multiplicity of wings and factions make the party seem as ungovernable as the nation. But that rowdiness can also be a sign of vitality and vigorous debate. A core remains that should appeal to traditional Jews: personal responsibility, individual liberty, limited government, public assistance not as an entitlement for all eternity but to help the needy become independent and self-sufficient, and a strong, respected America across the globe.

11 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel

First Drafts

Posted on September 25, 2013 | 2 comments

    On a trip to Moscow several years ago, I visited the Museum of the “Great Patriotic War,” what the Russians call World War II. Among the more memorable, even jarring, aspects of the visit was the chronology. The “Great Patriotic War,” World War II, by the Soviet reckoning began in 1941 (June 22, to be precise) and ended in 1945. When I pointed out to the museum guide who quite earnestly described both the suffering of the Soviet peoples during the war as well as their heroism) that the war actually started in 1939, when the Nazis and their Soviet allies both invaded Poland, she casually replied that the Great Patriotic War began in 1941 when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union.

     Gone and forgotten was the Soviet-Nazi Pact, written out of history. Two years were excised from World War II in order to avoid uncomfortable questions to the ruling bodies.

Similarly, on a visit to New Orleans (oddly, a month before Hurricane Katrina struck), I toured the Museum of the Confederacy that paid homage to the culture and heritage of the Old South. It was filled with guns and clothing and memorabilia of Southern life before the Civil War. There was just slight omission: there was no mention of slavery. That institution didn’t quite find its way into the museum.

Revisionist history is nothing new. History is often written by those with a specific agenda, and usually under the  assumption that people are ignorant, have short memories,  or are simply looking for confirmation of their biases. What is exceedingly rare historically, but becoming quite common today, is the revisionism of current events, such that events that have unfolded before our eyes are being forgotten or swept under the rug. Others are being shaped by slogans or clichés that are false, misleading or inaccurate.

For example, in a few months (if it hasn’t happened already)  who will care about Benghazi? The failure of intelligence, the hesitation in dispatching Special Forces, the lies about a “video” that purported to be the motivation behind the terrorist attack, and the persistent denials and obfuscations about the terror itself are all submerged in a single narrative that echoes Hillary Clinton’s line: “what difference does it make?” Reputations matter more than truth. The mobilization of an entire government to conceal the truth from the people – especially during the height of an election – is shrouded by the sudden and protracted befuddlement of all participants.

So, too, the collapse of Iraq into sectarian violence effaces the progress that had been made over the last decade. Such violence had largely ended before American troops were summarily pulled out after the Obama administration failed to conclude a new Status of Forces Agreement. The narrative of “Iraq War Failure” is coming true, in a way that was unnecessary if the conflict had been managed successfully by the current president. It wasn’t. As Iraq slides into the Iranian orbit, US interests will suffer. But who will recall the proximate cause? History will record only the “Bush Failure.”

The promise to remove US troops from overseas wars is being fulfilled. But after US troops leave Afghanistan, how long will it take for the rebirth of the Taliban and a new base of operations for Al-Qaeda? The current policy of declaring victory in the war on Islamic terror and retreating sounds good but is a terrible harbinger for the future. Those problems will mature under a future president, much like Clinton’s disregard of Osama bin Laden only exploded in his successor’s administration. Ditto the freebie that Assad has received in his use of chemical weapons; the divestment agreement, which has little credibility, serves its main purpose of Obama saving face in the wake of his red lines being ignored. That, too, will be someone else’s problem. Obama is laying the foundation for one of his main legacies: never having sent US troops into battle on his own account. But that “legacy” might be a harmful one, if troops are actually needed to fight evil, and certainly if the United States is thereby reduced to a secondary military and economic power in the world as is projected by the present course.

US guarantees that Iran will not acquire a nuclear weapon stand now as rhetoric detached from reality. All sanctions and pressure will be lifted if the right words are uttered and the right treaties signed at the right signing ceremonies – just like the North Koreans did en route to their nuclear bombs. A scandal-weary public already little recalls the excesses  of the IRS or the NSA. They will be blips in the history books, if that.

Add to this litany of revisionism the president’s style of non-negotiation with Congress over domestic issues, resting on his oft-repeated assertion that he “won” and therefore can do as he wishes. But the former adjunct professor of Constitutional Law overlooks the fact that the Republicans in Congress also “won,” also have constituents to represent, and that the presidency is just one branch of three co-equal branches of government. “I won” is not only arrogance, but a contemptuous dismissal of political norms. It is a shame that no Republican challenges him on those statements; the people elected a president – a Chief Executive of one branch of government – not a dictator.

And among the more risible and unchallenged declarations of the president in recent weeks is that he will not negotiate with Congress over raising the debt ceiling because the United States has “to pay its bills,” and “meet its obligations.” But borrowing more money to pay bills is not the same as “paying bills.” Bills are paid with money that you have and not by incurring new debt. Using one’s MasterCard to pay one’s Visa bill is not quite meeting the country’s (or anyone’s) obligations; it is rather enshrining the abandonment of personal responsibility, thrift, decency, pushing the problem onto the next guy, reaping the popular benefits from a disengaged public, and indicative of a lack of vision or leadership.

Bear in mind today the deceptions, the mendacious speech and slogans, and the soothing talk that masks the government’s dysfunction. They are the first drafts of tomorrow’s history that, like the museums in Moscow and New Orleans, will obscure uncomfortable truths in order to promote the agendas of their sponsors.

2 Comments

Posted in Current Events

Hail Mariano

Posted on September 18, 2013 | 2 comments

       It was one of the most moving scenes I’ve witnessed on a baseball field. Mariano Rivera entered this past year’s All-Star Game to a standing ovation from the 45,000 fans at Citi Field but, even more poignantly, from the players in both dugouts, almost all of them his longtime opponents. He has been feted by his rivals in every stadium in which he performed, including this past week in Fenway Park. The celebrations are in recognition not only of his athletic excellence but, more importantly, of his goodness and sterling character.

     The greatest closer in the history of baseball is retiring this year after a long, distinguished and record-setting career. Those few critics who have long disparaged the closer role, deeming it overrated and capable of fulfillment by almost anyone, must answer one question: how come no one has ever accomplished what Mariano has, and for almost two decades?

The record speaks for itself. The Yankee pitcher has well over 600 saves, and 300 more than his closest active rival, who, at 38 years old, will never challenge that record; over 40 saves in the post-season with a microscopic 0.70 ERA, with 11 World Series saves, all records that will likely never be broken. He possesses a strikeout to walk ratio that is astonishing, and consistency that is mindboggling. Many of his peers who had exceptional seasons or two have usually flamed out within a short period. Rivera marches on, year after year, throwing the same unhittable pitch, and racking up save after save.

His personal story is even more compelling. Having grown up in poverty in Panama, he strengthened his arm by throwing stones and makeshift baseballs of old socks or fishing nets. The pitch that made his career – the cutter that darts in or away from hitters after their reaction time has passed – was discovered almost as a fluke, but nothing else about his life seems coincidental. And the respect he has earned from fans, teammates and fellow players is not at all contrived or manufactured, nor is the adulation typical of the modern athlete. Therein lies his uniqueness, not as much in the skill he displays on the baseball field but the values and character he embodies both on and off the field.

Too often, athletes are lionized for the wrong reasons, and the right reasons are very rare. The very notion of perceiving athletes as “role models” rings false and usually ends in disappointment. Too many succumb to the allures of money, drugs, cheating, and womanizing and many have contributed thereby to the debasing of American culture. Most are actually role models for, as Mickey Mantle said about himself towards the end of his life, “what not to do.” That is what makes Mariano Rivera such a welcome relief (interesting word in this context) in the sports world.

Rivera is a religious man whose expressions of faith after wins or losses always sound sincere and heartfelt. His frequent references to God seem real and natural and not contrived. He is married to his childhood sweetheart and together they raise their family, that itself a sports world rarity. His charitable work is as legendary as his baseball talent – building a sports field in his home town, renovating churches (his wife is a pastor in one), funding athletic activities for underprivileged children, etc. He has spent his farewell tour of American League cities by visiting – in each stadium in which he has played – the longtime employees (clubhouse workers, ticket sellers, etc.) with whom he has interacted over the years, bestowing gifts on one particular person in each venue, and explaining that these employees are as much a part of the baseball business as he is. Such selflessness is acknowledged in the media but not trumpeted. Needless to say –no, it must be said – he has never had the slightest hint of scandal tarnish his reputation in a baseball era that has been pockmarked by persistent scandals.

His career teaches us important lessons. One was suggested by a colleague. Roles matter in life, and people have to make their contributions to the world in line with their fundamental roles. Thus, Mariano Rivera will soon retire holding a unique and dubious record: having played the most games in major league baseball history – well over 1100 games – without recording even a single base hit. But only a baseball am haaretz would construe that as a blemish on his stellar career; his role is to save games, not to swing the bat. Take note: it is only in a milieu poisoned by persistent grievances of feminists and others that the prescription of roles grates and exasperates. They are essential to the functioning of any organization, or religion, or gainful activity. We should always strive to do well what we can do and what we are supposed to do, and not lament or moan about what we can’t or shouldn’t do.

One particular trait of Rivera’s, so prized by the Jewish people, stands out: humility. In an age when countless basketball and football players, and many baseball players, showboat with every accomplishment – standing and gazing at their handiwork, glaring at defeated opponents, waving their arms and bowing to the crowd after working out a third-inning walk – Rivera is universally admired for his steely determination but also stoic demeanor. He never gloated after successes and never pouted after his rare failures, notably in the 2001 World Series when one hard-hit ball, his throwing error, and a bloop hit, cost the Yankees the seventh game, or in the 2004 blown playoffs against the Red Sox. Instead, he praised his opponents, accepted God’s will (in his words), and was always gracious. After a recent blown save, he said: “This was a great game, until I entered it.” He remains a fierce competitor, but without any desire to show up the teams whose defeat he had just sealed. When the games end, he breathes a sigh of relief (that word again) and after a few seconds displays a smile as he accepts his teammates’ congratulations. Nothing more.

No wonder baseball’s best players stood and applauded for him at the All Star Game, the man who had victimized so many of them for so long, but did it with grace, humility, dignity and mutual respect.

That is the Musar of Mariano.

2 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events

The Virtue of Self-Doubt

Posted on September 12, 2013 | 6 comments

The Ten Days of Penitence culminating in Yom Kippurim usher in a period of reflection, contemplation, introspection and repentance. We look back at our past deeds and evaluate what could have been done differently or should have been done better (or not at all) before turning our attention to prospective actions, thoughts and traits. An honest appraisal of oneself is imperative as a prelude to making any real progress in one’s character development.

Earlier this summer, I received an intensive lesson in self-evaluations and re-appraisals in a trip to the great American Midwest and south, and a tour of presidential libraries. In less than a week, we visited the Truman Library (Independence MO), the Clinton Library (Little Rock AR), and the two Bush libraries in Texas (Bush II in Dallas and Bush I in College Station). Each was fascinating (they all are; I have visited most), and each was extraordinarily well done. Truman was the first to devote his post-presidency to his library, although FDR was the first president to designate his home in Hyde Park as a library and research center. (An excellent new museum just opened at the FDR Library, and was visited more recently).

Each museum has one objective and answers one general question: how does the president want to be remembered – not how the media or historians perceive him – but how does he want to be remembered? Truman emphasized his humble origins, his accidental presidency that took years to become his own, his integrity and small-town American values. Clinton’s library is an architecturally and intellectually overwhelming, and incredibly wonkish. It is as if he tried to account for every single day of his presidency; his daily schedule for every day of his presidency is neatly displayed in folders month after month, year after year (well, not every day; it was the days of “no official presidential business” that got him into trouble.) He was also the least personal of presidents, as if his entire life was about politics. All the other presidents featured their backgrounds, personal homes, lighter moments, family life, hobbies, etc. Clinton, unique among modern presidents, seemingly did not have a home – he lived in the governor’s mansion and then the White House for well over two decades, and vacations were spent at friends’ homes.

George H. W. Bush. had the most impressive personal history of any of them – having had much more life experience than the others in a variety of capacities, without complete success in any of them – from being shot down as a Navy pilot in WW II to his business career, service in Congress, variety of presidential appointments, the vice-presidency and his one-term presidency. His library devotes more time to his other careers than the others did, and naturally with special emphasis on the Gulf War during his tenure.

And the George W. Bush library was riveting, and visually spectacular. Obviously, he underscored certain things and gave short shrift to others, but one thing stood out, and maybe it was because we went to Truman on Sunday, Clinton on Monday and Bush II on Tuesday. Bush’s whole theme – like the name of his memoirs – was “Decision Points.” There is even a Decision Points Theater in his museum where visitors can stand and assess the various factors, pro and con, that went into his major decisions – the war, response to Katrina, the surge, and the financial crisis – with each issue broken down into four categories, with expert advice on both sides – and then the visitor gets to decide. It is a tiny glimpse into the life of the president, the decisions that have to be made – sometimes quickly – and how sometimes good and reasonable decisions do not turn out as hoped.

But here’s what was most impressive: Bush didn’t claim to be right on every decision. Even good decisions can sometimes go awry. He didn’t even know if it was the right decision at the time, only that it was his honest conclusion after weighing all the facts, circumstances and expert opinion. Truman was the same way; in his library, there was a large wall, that contained floor to ceiling two dozen different opinions from people as to whether Truman should have used the atomic bomb – and twice – on Japan, including a quote from Dwight Eisenhower in 1963 that he (Ike) thought it was unnecessary. Some of the quoted were quite critical of Truman. In essence, Truman didn’t claim to be right, only that he did what he thought was right – to avert the anticipated death of a million American servicemen in a land invasion of Japan. (To me, still a compelling and proper conclusion for an American Commander-in-Chief.)

There was humility in both men, the modest expression of doubt – and even in Bush I’s account of the lead up to the Gulf War, agonizing over launching it and seeking a world consensus before doing so. FDR’s new museum was similarly, and brutally, honest, with a dozen sidebars called “Confront the Issue” that featured unblemished and objective looks at FDR’s actions or inactions: did he know about Pearl Harbor before it happened? Did he provoke a war with Germany by siding with Britain and ending America’s neutrality months before December 1941? Did he do anything substantial to save Jewish refugees, beyond rhetoric? Should he have bombed the railway tracks to Auschwitz? Did he conceal his health problems from the public before the 1944 election?  Both sides were presented. Criticisms were acknowledged.

Doubt is good; it is human. It is humbling. It is worthy of a leader.

Bill Clinton’s museum stands out in that he had no doubts. It is not done in a heavy-handed way, but the idea comes through very clearly. Every issue he confronted had only one right answer – his. The only problem in his presidency was the presence of Republicans, who could only obstruct and thwart his efforts to perfect the world but little positive. Even the section on his impeachment was devoted to statements and videos of scholars saying that his was not an impeachable offense, and all about politics and personal destruction. And even some of his strengths as president – his ability to triangulate policy and compromise with Republicans – are muted in favor of his certainty of rectitude that brooks no other possibilities. He comes across, and probably is, a decent and caring person, but he has no doubts, no hesitation, no regrets and no second thoughts about any of his policies or actions. Nor, seemingly, will he abide anyone else having them.

The current occupant of the White House seems cut from the same cloth, and one would expect his presidential library and museum to countenance no dissent, no criticism, and no latitude in which there can be more than one right opinion, or any opinion not that of Obama himself. It certainly explains today’s desperate needs to avoid looking like he has erased his red line on Syria’s use of  chemical and to make the pending compromise look like it was his idea all along – and not like he has been outmaneuvered by the wily Russians. (I suppose it stands to reason that a former KGB operative should be able to outwit a former community organizer.)

This is a terrible weakness in a president, a leader or in any human being – the inability or unwillingness to take a second look and re-evaluate past decisions. The inner capacity to tolerate that one might have erred and sometimes grievously in one’s calculations, or even that one made a sound decision that subsequent events proved faulty, is critical to self-improvement and personal growth. Perhaps the weaknesses arise from personality and temperament, from insecurity born of one’s youthful experiences, or from the ubiquity of the modern media that will record for posterity every admission of failure and broadcast it repeatedly.

Whatever the reason, the days before Yom Kippurim are an ideal time for us commoners to search our hearts and ways, evaluate past conduct, rectify misdeeds, learn from our mistakes, make the appropriate changes for the future, and, in so doing, merit divine favor and grace in the year ahead.

6 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Machshava/Jewish Thought