Rabbi Pruzansky's Blog

    Kyle Williams, please meet Bill Buckner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   With rumors circulating that Joe Biden will be dumped in the summer and replaced with Hillary Clinton as President Obama’s vice-presidential running-mate (as predicted here two years ago), Mrs. Clinton’s performance as Secretary of State deserves some analysis. In the media, she regularly receives “high marks” for her tenure, and is “immensely popular” among the American public. So how has she performed?

     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.