Obama’s Struggle

Posted on March 25, 2011 | 6 comments

    Now that President Obama has done the right thing and joined other countries in creating the no-fly zone over Libya, one wonders what took so long ? If the goal – as stated – was the humanitarian interest in preserving the lives of innocent Libyans, such as they are, then would it not have made more sense to enforce the no-fly zone (depriving Khadafy of his capacity to indiscriminately bomb his victims from the air) before thousands were killed, rather than after ? Certainly, some review was appropriate so as not to commit American troops hastily into a foreign civil war – but a full month while death was raining down from above ? And after the rebels were near defeat ? Why would Obama hesitate and – read this twice, for emphasis – have to be dragged by the French of all people into a military conflict ? And isn’t it even odder for a president to send US forces into harm’s way while he is in South America on an unrelated foreign trip ?

     These puzzles, and much else about Barack Obama and his policies, might be explained by a recent book entitled “The Roots of Obama’s Rage,”  by the conservative, Indian-born commentator, Dinesh D’Souza. D’Souza explores the enduring mystery of Obama the person: deep into his first term, Obama is obviously an historic president but he is also still a relative unknown. It is fair to say that Obama is the most unknown president in American history, both before he was elected with the skimpiest of professional resumes and even today. Of course, we need not descend into conspiracy-theory land (Obama the Kenyan ! Obama the Alien !), even though Obama has fueled these myths by refusing (as all presidential candidates have done for almost a half-century) to release his birth certificate, school and college applications and transcripts, and perhaps even health records.

     The outline of his story is famous for the revealed and for the obscured. Conceived out of wedlock by a Kenyan father (Barack Obama, Sr.) and Kansan mother soon after they met in Hawaii, they married, with Obama, Sr. neglecting to tell his new wife that he was already married with children in Kenya.  He abandoned them, moved to study at Harvard, and impregnated another woman there, returning with her to Kenya and his original family. Mother (Stanley Ann Dunham) and son (Barack Obama Jr.) lived in Hawaii, moved to Indonesia with her second husband, where young Obama lived and was educated for four years. She then sent him back to Hawaii to live with her parents, and from age ten on had little to do with his biological parents.
       Obama was an average student at Occidental College in Los Angeles (he refuses to release his grades), then transferred to Columbia where few people recall him (again, no transcripts). He soon went to work as community organizer in the black districts of Chicago, adopting the tactics of veteran rabble-rouser  Saul Alinsky which read like a campaign manual: adopt the style of the middle class – it is less threatening;  be square, wear a suit and tie, never be angry; project yourselves as part of the cultural mainstream; and present as a nice young man, always smiling. “Smiles are a great way to disguise rage and contempt.”  This way, “rapport” would be built with average Americans. Obama explicitly disdained the shakedown style of Jesse Jackson, even prompting an off-hand statement from Jackson during the campaign that he would like to dismember Obama whom he feared would put him out of business. (In a sense he has – Obama marginalized the charge that the United States and its business community are racist, and the latter no longer feel inclined to pay the Jackson blackmail. Al Sharpton, by contrast, has adjusted and tried to mainstream.)

       Obama always struck me as rootless and lacking a real sense of an American identity. Hence, his rejection of American exceptionalism, his relentless apologies to various dictators and potentates across the globe for American imperialism, and his perception of the United States  as just another country, one of 210 in the United Nations. Part of his struggles is obviously rooted in his mixed-race status, although it is interesting that in high-school (in wildly multi-cultural Hawaii), he was known as Barry and did not identify as a “black.” D’Souza notes parenthetically that he, an Indian, is darker-skinned than Obama, but would never classify himself as “black.” That was done for political reasons in college; yet, Obama never really played the race card himself, and part of his attraction to white voters in 2008 was that he presented as a “safe black” – the anti-Jesse Jackson, not a shakedown hustler – but one who could act white and transcend race. So why did he align himself with Jeremiah Wright and his church of rabid US-haters ? Not for reasons of race alone, and it all goes back to his absent father.

           Barack Obama saw his father but one time during his entire life – at age ten, when his father came on a brief visit to Hawaii. Yet, Obama admittedly sees himself as fulfilling his father’s dreams and destiny – and even called his first book “Dreams from my Father.” Note that well, D’Souza emphasizes, it is not “Dreams of My Father” but “Dreams from My Father.” D’Souza posits that Obama has spent his life implementing his father’s social goals and politics. So, beyond the brief sketch above, who was Obama Sr., and how is he posthumously running our lives ?

       D’Souza’s theory is that Obama is not motivated by race but by another loaded concept, anti-colonialism, and this is his father’s legacy. Obama’s father was involved in the anti-British rebellion in Kenya in the 1950s, and his family (especially his grandfather who kowtowed to the British and therefore disgusted Obama Jr.) suffered under the British.  Obama Sr., upon his return from America, took a government job in Kenya.  He was an economist by training, but more importantly defined himself as an “African socialist” who felt that undoing colonialism meant having African state control over the means and sources of production – i.e., a state-planned and controlled economy. When Jomo Kenyatta became president of Kenya and embraced the free market, Sr. found himself without a government job – or any job. His life spiraled out of control, and he became a raging alcoholic. In one drunken car crash, he lost both his legs, and in another – his last – he crashed into a tree again driving while intoxicated. He died, penniless, at age 46.

       Obama understandably idolized his father, around whom he concocted a past of nobility and success. (His half-brothers, who spent more time around their father, have no such illusions.) Interestingly,  and like other politicians whose recollections are not corroborated by facts, Obama claimed during the campaign that his father came to US after the riots in Birmingham and Selma induced President Kennedy to offer college scholarships to promising African students. On the campaign trail, he even thanked the good people of Selma whose protests brought his father to America and enabled Obama Jr. to be born. Great story – unfortunately, the riots took place in 1963, but Obama Sr. arrived in America in 1959 – long before Birmingham, Selma and Kennedy. Obama himself was born in 1961 !

     But Obama absorbed from his father – and his mother – a strain of anti-colonialism that surreptitiously shapes his life and policies. In short, he perceives America as his father did the British – and as Africans, Asians, and South Americans perceived Europeans (and Americans, where appropriate) – as colonizers, imperialists and exploiters of the poor.

   D’Souza contends that anti-colonialism explains Obama’s personality and policies (and endanger America’s future). Consider what Obama has done since he took office:

1)      Remove the bust of Winston Churchill that graced the Oval Office  – ostensibly a tribute to a great American ally but to Obama a symbol of British colonial rule, and the prime minister who suppressed the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya;

2)      Attempt to close Guantanamo, even without considering realistic alternatives – to him, a symbol of American imperialistic overreach in other countries;

3)      Apologize for American actions across world – especially to Muslim, African and South American worlds – without even mentioning the virtuous aspects of American intervention or culture;

4)      Refuse to allow offshore drilling in US (but, oddly, subsidizing off-shore drilling in Brazil – for Brazil). This cripples US oil production, and essentially transfers wealth from the colonizer to the colonized. America will be forced to import more and more oil, weakening the US economy, while benefiting the economies of the previously “exploited” regions;

5)      Humble what Obama considers the “overclass,” the “fat cats” – by asserting  control over US corporations, limiting both the salaries of CEOs and corporate profits, demanding and incentivizing  the manufacturing of products that few want (electric cars), and limiting bank offerings and products.  He even forced all banks to receive government bailouts – even those that didn’t need or request a bailout, just to have control for future mischief.)

6)      Distance America from Israel – whom he perceives as another illicit colonizer;

7)      Pay lip service to thwarting Iranian nuclear ambitions, but which he will do nothing to stop because that would be an “imperialistic” act.

8)      Disrespect Britain and France (old Europe=colonizers), even spurning a dinner invitation from Sarkozy first time Obama visited Paris as president.

9)      Complain that the US consumes too much (even though biggest emitters of carbon dioxide are India and China, who get a pass –one of the privileges of being the “colonized”;

10)   Spend the US into dependent status that will either bankrupt country or lower the standard of living through the imposition of higher taxes – all to effect a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. Obama believes that the rich always get rich at the expense of the poor, and that the poor are always poor because of the nefarious deeds of the rich. American influence will surely decline as it becomes a debtor nation living at the whim of the Chinese.

11)   Ram through health care reform, to provide (ultimately) the same care for all under the control of the government.

12)   Construe US as rogue state, and ending talk of “war on terror.”  Terrorists are criminals to be judged in courts; otherwise, the US seems like just another colonial power. And merely for alluding that he will effectively restrain US power and influence, and no longer lead, he received the Nobel Prize;

13)   Criticize civil rights in the US whenever he criticizes it in foreign nations (e.g., comparing Chinese trafficking of women to some in the US who have old-fashioned views of women; comparing Turkish genocide of Armenians to US “treatment of native Americans.”)

14)   Weaken alliances with America’s traditional allies, while unsuccessful in forging alliances with the Third World countries who have no natural affinity for US or democracy. Like many of this ilk, Obama disdains Netanyahu, Sarkozy, Cameron, et al, but has no objection to native tyrants (Zimbabwe, Hussein, Chavez) – only foreign ones.

   This explains Obama’s attraction to Jeremiah Wright – it wasn’t the black empowerment or even the Jew-baiting but rather the anti-Americanism. Wright perceives America as an evil colonialist exploiter that uses its dominance and power for selfish and hateful ends. Those were the sermons that Barack Obama heard for 20 years. And it also explains why Obama hesitated on Libya and cannot wait to pull out American forces –in his mind, it is the act of a colonialist imposing its values on a backward country. Like other initiatives in his presidency (keeping Guantanamo open, for one, and the surge in Afghanistan, for another), Obama occasionally has to bend his will to the political reality in which he lives. Obama also feels a natural affinity for Latin American dictators, even more than for European prime ministers. He doesn’t seem to realize that the world benefits when America leads.

       D’Souza notes that the point Obama misses most is that – despite the hardships – colonialism worked.  India’s Prime Minister said recently at Oxford that, despite the past bitterness, with the perspective of time, it is clear that India benefited from the British rule (of more than two centuries) because the British fashioned for Indians concepts such as democracy, rule of law, free press, universities, etc. Both India and China have benefited enormously from free trade, and become critical parts of global economy. (That is the advantage of a poor country – they can pay low wages and make better export deals.) So hundreds of millions people have been lifted out of poverty in last 30 years in those two countries – but Obama opposes free trade agreements because he is beholden to American unions  and because he feels such agreements always exploit the poorer country, despite the evidence to the contrary.

     Ironically, Africa missed out on these developments because European colonialism did not endure on that continent for more than 50 years. Africa was thus never able to develop modern political institutions, and despite its great natural resources, Africans subsist in dire poverty and mostly under the rule of brutal dictatorships. The greater irony, D’Souza notes, is that Obama is the last anti-colonialist. If he were to see the advantages of colonial rule – followed by colonial departure – he would embrace a different type of American statecraft. But he can’t, paralyzed by the need to implement his father’s dreams.

      In summary, D’Souza concludes that about Obama Sr. that “this philandering, inebriated African socialist is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son.”  And that will continue, at least for another 22 months.

       It is a good a theory as any I have heard.

6 Comments

A New Paradigm

Posted on March 17, 2011 | 7 comments

    (This article was first published as an op-ed in this week’s Jewish Press.)

     The atrocity in Itamar, in which two parents and three young children were brutally murdered by believers in the “religion of peace,” has shocked and dismayed all civilized people. Blame is always ascribed to the perpetrators, whose inhumanity and animalistic instincts know no bounds. But it is foolhardy to ignore the effects of the Netanyahu policies that have facilitated both terror and the further deterioration of Israel’s strategic position.

     Certainly, the passion with which PM Netanyahu denounced the murderers and the PA was welcome, even if his “demands” on them were risible. For the umpteenth time in the last 18 years, angry Israeli spokesmen condemned the unchecked incitement emanating from official Palestinian organs – media, schools, etc. – and demanded its immediate cessation. Undoubtedly, the same Israelis will deplore the same incitement after the next terrorist attack, and the one after that as well. Perhaps it is too much to ask, but when will official Israel admit that “incitement” is not a Palestinian tactic or an aberration but a way of life and a genuine and natural expression of their intense hatred of Jews?

     If and when that happens, it can only come after official Israel admits that it is foolish and counterproductive to continue to “negotiate” with a Palestinian Authority that is both unauthorized and duplicitous. To even request that they begin “educating their people for peace” shows that Netanyahu participates in the charade. If he knows that the Arabs engage in double talk and that they are uninterested in negotiations leading to a peace treaty, then why would he even contemplate more concessions, including the rumored dramatic initiative of Israel’s acceptance of a Palestinian State of undefined borders? This returns us to the insanities of the last two decades.

     Did the removal of military checkpoints outside Shechem facilitate the monsters’ movements? Perhaps, but in any event, it is ludicrous to remove checkpoints during a war. As the scientist Gerald Schroeder pointed out in our shul on Shabbat, every American passes through several checkpoints on the way to an airplane. Those Americans who insist on the removal of Israeli checkpoints should demand first the removal of American checkpoints at airports.

      Nevertheless, PM Netanyahu is responsible for an ongoing failure, an epic blunder that both undercuts his leadership and sows the seeds for such heinous crimes as occurred in Itamar.

     Simply put, Netanyahu may not be able to influence events on the ground in Israel’s turbulent neighborhood, but he should be able to capitalize on them in order to advance Israel’s strategic interests. Instead, he is locked into an old paradigm that has been discredited. Apparently, Netanyahu remains committed to the “land for peace” formula that has never worked and is still unworkable. To plan for new territorial concessions to more unstable despots when the previous ones have brought instability and mayhem is folly. So why would an MIT graduate like Netanyahu do that?

    The answer is an incapacity to look at the conflict through anything but secular lenses. He is trapped in a rigid world-view in which Israel’s interests and narrative are dominated by “historical” claims and security concerns. Both have failed to capture the public mind, and have left Israelis wondering why their pain, the justice of their cause and their willingness to make concessions leave the world unmoved and indifferent to their plight. Israelis are also troubled that the world does not the world distinguish between Israel’s claims of 3500 years and the “claims” of the Palestinians, a “people” that is a 20th century invention concocted solely to thwart the nascent Jewish national movement.

    This disconnect exists because Israel itself doesn’t distinguish between the two narratives, but has embraced the “two peoples for one land” distortion of history. “History” cuts both ways. Jews historically resided in the land, but so did other nations, and Jews did not reside en masse in the land of Israel for centuries at a time. For a world with short memories, it makes no difference how old – or how valid – the claims are, as long as claims are made that pre-date its living memory. And the “security” argument is increasingly hollow. The Arab contention is superior to the Israeli one: “you stole my house. Give it back and we will not bother you.” To which the Israeli responds: “Well, give me proof that you won’t bother me.” And the Arab replies: “That is crazy. Get out of my house!”

     No wonder the world is deaf to Israel’s claims; they are as illogical as they are immoral. We don’t respond: “Wrong, this is our house!”

     Every concession that Israel makes or even entertains simply reinforces the Arab narrative. When Israel releases terrorists from prison as a good-will gesture, it sends the message that the terrorists were not justly imprisoned in the first place. When Israel removes security checkpoints, it sends the message that the checkpoints had no real security dimension but were simply a means to harass Arabs. When the government of Israel freezes construction in settlements, it sends the message that building in the heartland of Israel is illegal and unjustifiable. (Then it wonders why the UN wants to declare settlements illegal!) When Israel destroys outposts in Samaria, it broadcasts that the land of Israel does not belong to the people of Israel. When Israel allows building only in response to terror, it shouts that settlement is not a natural right but a vengeful tool. Those messages are received by audiences across the world.
     The cardinal sin of the Netanyahu tenure is that he and his minions repeatedly fail to utilize the only narrative that carries real substance and can transform the entire debate: that the Jewish people’s claim to the land of Israel is not based on history, security, or the Holocaust but on the biblical fact that the Creator of the Universe bequeathed it to our forefathers, and through them to us, as an “everlasting possession.” It should not require a great leap of imagination to embrace this concept; after all, it is the very reason why the idea of a return to Zion animated generations of Jews dwelling in far-flung exiles. It is the very reason why Jews sacrificed to return, build and defend the land of Israel. The problem is that Netanyahu, a secular person like almost all of his predecessors, does not believe it. It plays no role in his policy formulations.

    That itself is foolish and counterproductive because the world today is riveted by religious ideas that are in both ideological competition and armed conflict with each other. Radical Islam is at war with the Christian West and with Jewish Israel. These are fundamentally religious disputes, even if the seculars among us – Jews and Christians – abhor the notion and eschew its applicability. That is why radical Muslims regular threaten the “Crusaders and the Zionists” (i.e., Christians and Jews) and that is why Jews – not only Israelis – are targets of Islamic hatred throughout the world, and not only in Israel. And Israel’s keenest supporters in America today are the tens of millions of Bible-believing Christian evangelicals, who are often puzzled that they embrace the Biblical narrative far more enthusiastically than do Israel’s leaders. By adopting a religious perspective, at least we will have joined the debate instead of standing on the sidelines uttering irrelevancies.

     Israel has suffered enormously over the years because its leaders have been secular Jews who have shorn the history of Israel of its religious dimension, and who have rooted Israel’s right to existence in amorphous and unpersuasive arguments relating to the Holocaust and security matters. Israel deserves to have a believing Jew as its prime minister, and Israel’s large religious Jewish community needs to have the self-confidence that a Torah Jew can infuse policy with faith, and support such individuals as leaders (and not recycle other failed, secular leaders as has been the pattern for decades).

      The new paradigm would transform the debate overnight. Territorial concessions would be ruled out, because “this land is our land, given to us by G-d.” Building and development would take place throughout the land of Israel, as this is the Torah’s mandate as Ramban explained. “Settlements” would no longer be an excuse for terror but a natural part of nation-building. Non-Jews would be welcomed as residents of this land as long as they embraced basic norms of morality and acceded to the sovereignty of the Jewish people. Israel would not feel guilty about fighting and defeating a brutal and merciless enemy. It would no longer be on the defensive before international tribunals. Israel’s Prime Minister would no longer be the only world leader who bends to President Obama’s commands. Indeed, the word “concession” could be retired from Israel’s diplomatic lexicon.

     Imagine if an Israeli prime minister said: “World, we are here because the Almighty, in Whom we trust, gave us this land so that we should serve Him and observe His Torah therein. Without the promises of the Torah, we have no reason to be here. And we are here to stay, in the land of our history and our destiny.” Such would end the days of defensiveness, awkwardness, guilt and recriminations. World leaders (and many Jews) would be apoplectic – in the short term. But they would recover – and Israel’s case would be persuasive and winnable, and have the added advantage of being true and holy.

      It is about time that the people of Israel were governed by Jewish leaders steeped in Jewish history and values and faith. In a region that is being swept by less savory revolutions, that would be a revolution that would inspire our nation and perhaps even lead the world to a bright and peaceful era of untold good.   

7 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel

Moral Preening

Posted on March 10, 2011 | 3 comments

    There is a sad familiarity to the posturing taking place on all sides in the Middle East. With Libyan dictator Muammar Khadafy using brute force – murdering untold numbers of civilians in a desperate attempt to retain power (something that Mubarak in Egypt or Ben Ali of Tunisia did not do) – there have been persistent calls for the United States to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya. Such a tactic would effectively deprive Khadafy of his ability to use air power to strafe and kill his targets, which now represents his greatest strategic advantage over the insurgents.

     President Obama, as is his wont, has been non-committal, preferring to refer this matter to the “international community” – cowardice masked as prudence. Living in fear of being accused of imperialism – a charge that he himself has levied against past American foreign policy – Obama has essentially vitiated America’s role as leader of the free world and as a moral force. In a very lawyerly fashion, he is seeking to dot every “I” and cross every “T” before acting, or instead of acting, and wishes to hide behind the cover of “consensus.” Well, “consensus,” as Margaret Thatcher once said, has never inspired, rallied or guided anyone, and it is the exact opposite of true leadership. It is an epic failure, on a par with Obama’s indifference to the revolution in Iran in the summer of 2009.

      That is not to say that a no-fly zone is necessarily a good idea. It is a relatively benign process, given America’s superior air power, and would likely cause Khadafy to refrain from using his jets and helicopters on its murderous runs. But the hesitation that grips many in the West, and even more Jews, is the great unknown: who are these insurgents and rebels ? It is taken for granted that Khadafy is a thug, a murderer, a primitive peasant who does not present as sane; but who’s to say that he will not be replaced by someone crazier, more violent, and even more anti-American and anti-Israel ? (How can one be more anti-Israel than Khadafy ? Answer: by embracing the suicidal dimension of Islamic politics. For all his insanity and enmity, Khadafy is not self-destructive, as are the new breed of Islamic radicals.)

     But there is one compelling factor that argues in favor of a no-fly zone: morality. A no-fly zone stopped the carnage in Bosnia and Iraq in the 1990’s, but in both cases was only enforced after thousands were killed. In fact, that is the pathetic pattern of Western (including American) responses to genocide: inaction, or some action after it is too late, followed by hand-wringing and moral preening.

     For all the talk about the preciousness of life, human rights, heinous deeds that are deemed “unacceptable” (a favorite term of both Obama and Hillary Clinton), and cries of “never again,” the talk is just hollow, phony to its core. The world was silent while Turks massacred Armenians in 1915, while Stalin and Mao murdered millions under their despotic rule, while Nazis exterminated six million Jews and several million others, while Pol Pot killed millions of Cambodians and Idi Amin hundreds of thousands of Ugandans. The world was effectively silent while Rwandans and Darfurians were brutalized. The list goes on. And most of the massacres were followed by empathetic speeches piously intoned about our moral failures, by ceremonies commemorating the victims and memorials constructed as an everlasting testament to their dignity, and fund-raisers to ensure that human consciousness be elevated enough that there are no recurrences of these travesties. All until the next one, when the process is repeated.

     We are much better at honoring the dead than preventing their deaths in the first place. Too often, we would rather grieve over the murdered than defend the living.

     Part of this comes from a natural hesitation to use force, which unfortunately is usually the only way to thwart the evil acts of the wicked. The Jews during the story of Purim took up arms to defend themselves; they did not form focus groups or seek to negotiate with their enemies. Often, those who are most passionate about defending the innocent victims of genocide are the most squeamish about using military might to defend those same victims. Years ago, a young activist tried to enlist my support for a rally to mobilize people on behalf of the suffering victims of Darfur. When I asked the purpose of the rally, she said it was “to raise consciousness.” When I persisted and asked what policy objectives she had in mind after consciousness was duly raised, she claimed not to understand my point. I explained: “Do you want the American government to send troops to Darfur ? I could understand  and support the deployment if  that is the goal, because that would save lives. But what is your objective ?” She answered that she is against using military force to solve problems, and just wanted to “raise consciousness.” I declined to participate in what I construed to be a vacuous exercise designed to make the participants feel good about themselves, but would not – and did not – have any meaningful result.

      Certainly, legitimate questions are always raised about the propriety of the sacrifice asked of Americans, in blood and treasure, to protect innocents around the globe. Is it worth the life a 21-year-old American to save a Darfurian, a Libyan, an Iraqi or an Afghan – and especially when their efforts are not always appreciated by the rescued ? It is obviously a tribute to the selflessness of the American soldier – all volunteers – but is it worth it ?

      One who asks the question that way has to deal with its implication in this context: was it worth the life of an American to save a Jew during the Holocaust, to divert even one bomber to bomb a crematorium or a railway to prevent genocide ? If we are to decry what happened “While Six Million Died: A Chronicle of American Apathy” (Arthur Morse) or annually to denounce “The Abandonment of the Jews” (David Wyman), our premise must be that the American had some moral obligation not to be apathetic to Jews and not to abandon people in need. But what is the provenance of that premise ?

    The premise has to be the moral obligation of every person not to allow innocent blood to be shed, and to support policies that would effectively preclude genocide and punish the murderers. One can’t say that the US should have intervened during the Holocaust but not during Mao’s purges or Pol Pot’s rampages (the latter facilitated, in fact, by America’s withdrawal from Vietnam.) That is not morally tenable. Either do something when it matters, or stop the hand-wringing after the fact. I suppose distinctions can be made between saving innocent civilians who are friends of America (or neutral) and innocent civilians who are enemies of America. They are not so innocent, and it would be counter to American interests to protect the lives of those who want to take American lives. In effect, though, it is a distinction without a difference, because mass murderers do not discriminate based on the political views of the victims – especially when they are being bombed from the air.

    The “international community,” to whom Obama has made America’s moral standing hostage, is largely composed of gangsters, hypocrites and tyrants.  Deference to them is an excuse for inaction, but will surely result in flowery eulogies read beautifully from a teleprompter and a flood of crocodile tears that might force us all into arks. Undoubtedly, by the time a no-fly zone is instituted, if at all, lives that might have been saved will have been lost, and American influence in the region will have been further depleted. And we will be again basking in our illusory goodness because of our genuine sorrow over the past and our sincere hopes for the future. It is always the present that requires action and challenges the human being.

    A no-fly zone over Libya should be a no-brainer, and the desirability of expelling a murderous dictator (even one with oil) should be elementary for all but moral preeners and posturers.

3 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events

Moral Decline

Posted on March 4, 2011 | 7 comments

       Rutgers, a New Jersey State college, has joined the parade of moral dysfunction by approving what they term “gender-neutral” dorm rooms. In other words, students who feel “uncomfortable” living with roommates of the same sex can request roommates of the opposite sex. Ostensibly, this is designed to make homosexual students (or those of other alternative and atypical interests) more contented with their living arrangements so as to pre-empt tragedies such as last year’s suicide of an outed homosexual by his disapproving roommate. How this will prevent others from being similarly outed is a mystery, especially when they realize they are exposing themselves through the request itself. It is not uncommon for homosexuals to be persecuted by other homosexuals, struggling with their tendencies.

     This being a society that strives for fairness and equity in all spheres, Rutgers is unable to limit these options to the target group but must extend them to all. Thus, this gem (reported by Time.com): “In a titillating perk for heterosexual students, the ability to request an opposite-sex roommate is open to any student; Rutgers has no plans to ask about the sexual preferences of the person requesting a roommate or about the nature of the roommate relationship.   Parents unhappy with such an unorthodox dorm-room living situation are pretty much out of luck since housing contracts are signed by students. “We won’t be talking to parents about this,” says (Joan) Carbone (Rutgers’ executive director of residence life).”

    Well, such an arrangement certainly enables the male to avoid the tedium, expense and occasional painful rebuffs of the dating world – of actually courting a woman in a romantic sense, as opposed to merely perceiving her as an instrument of gratification of his physical needs. With this new arrangement, already found in several schools (including my alma mater, Columbia), the would-be Lothario has a paramour in hand, assuming she is willing and interested. And, if she is not, there is always the possibility of getting a new, more accommodating roommate.

     Undoubtedly, this setup will appeal to two groups in the heterosexual world: males with an inflated sense of their charms (an enormous number) and females with a pronounced inferiority complex and lack of self-esteem (I trust a much smaller number). Indeed, no self-respecting girl should ever embrace such an arrangement, and couples already living in an informal relationship would do well to focus on their studies and not live together in a faux marriage that is unlikely to endure but most likely to hamper their pursuit of knowledge and a career. But is that really what today’s college experience promises ?

     Now, some might argue that it is possible for a man and woman to live together platonically, as friends and roommates but not lovers. Count me as old-fashioned. I am sure it is “possible,” but is it probable ? Is it even desirable ? There is something quite sad about the death of desire that is surely attributable to the casual flings and hookups that characterize the social lives of the young, the heightened sexuality of modern culture that robs the young of their youth and innocence, and the pervasiveness of promiscuity and immorality. To have young men and women capable of interacting without any sexual tension between them – without any flirtation or romantic interest – is depressing. It is no wonder that most men express frustration and disappointment in that realm, and seek experiences outside the framework of marriages and family. By the time they get married – in their 30’s, according to the most recent statistics – they have seen it all and done it all. There is nothing really that special about the wedding or the marriage, and no compelling reason why the latter should endure. So, it doesn’t, or leaves both parties aching for fulfillment of their real goals in life and their dreams of (how is this for old-fashioned?) love.

        The misery of modern romance perhaps explains another gloomy statistic. The World Health Organization recently reported that Americans are the Western world’s biggest drug users. More than 16% of Americans have used cocaine (the closest country in the same study was New Zealand, at a little over 4% – and they’re at the end of the world!), and a whopping 42% have used marijuana. It is no wonder; life itself – the joys of spouses, families, conjugal pleasures, faith and friends – holds little long-term and persistent attraction. The “highs” can only be obtained artificially, and not in the real world. Furthermore, the array of lifestyle choices that is presented as “normal” has left many young people frustrated and sexually confused about something that should be natural and innate. Both the traumas of youth (that undoubtedly plays a role in their personal bewilderment) and the angst of adolescence are washed away through drink or drugs, but of course do not resolve the underlying issues that fester and eat away at their core.

      The modern university is not a citadel of ideas but a laboratory of social and sexual experimentation, a moral cesspool in which traditional values are mocked and traditional people are ill-at-ease. The Torah, which in any one chapter offers greater insight into human nature than one will find in any tome studied in university or in any of the tenured geniuses who teach there, recognizes the instinctual drives that shape the personality and therefore present the greatest moral challenge in life, but something else as well: to give free license to one’s instinctual nature does not deepen our enjoyment of physical pleasure but diminishes it – even deadens it.

       Thus have we become so desensitized to male-female pleasure that educators at distinguished universities can be so clueless as to the consequences of opposite-sex roommates. Thus have we been inundated with the necessity of mainstreaming homosexuality into our moral universe that those in charge of our children’s “residence life” on campus – for which the parents footing the bill may not be consulted – play matchmaker in a puzzle of ill-fitting parts.

    It should certainly make any parent think three or four times about the perils of secular college, which in one month can undo the effects of fifteen years (at an expense of hundreds of thousands of dollars) of yeshiva education. The yetzer hara (the part of man that pursues instinctual pleasure) is wily enough even when properly restrained; it is simply uncontrollable when the illicit is given free rein and provided the imprimatur of virtue and self-actualization. That is the death of any moral aspirations, as well as a certain way to deprive the participant of the capacity to experience any real pleasure. It also does not really enhance, or fulfill the essential purpose, of attending college.

     Perhaps those who wish to “take back” America can set these as worthwhile objectives, in addition to getting government off our backs and out of our pockets:  to end America’s dependence on narcotics, alcohol and other stimulants as the mediums of “pleasure,” to reclaim modesty, chastity and purity as educational goals and not merely as preachers’ tools, and to shun the purveyors of debauchery that has insidiously raided our homes and hearts and left many without the ability to feel, or even to recognize decadence for what it is.

     Indeed, the most troubling aspect of this policy is that its progenitors perceive it as enlightened instead of perverse. If that is so, then the decline of the American university is probably unstoppable, and new sources of moral instruction and scholastic enlightenment are needed for America to regain its path. The news that Brigham Young University has suspended its star basketball  player on the eve of the NCAA tournament for violating the school’s honor code (how delightfully quaint is that term!) by having pre-marital sex with his girlfriend underscores the magnitude of religion-based education as the only vehicle for inculcating a morality that transcends fads, trends and rationalizations. (The player was contrite in his apology to his teammates, something else unimaginable in a secular setting where the player would have been lauded for his personal choices and sued for reinstatement.)

      A secular university not only won’t foster traditional morality, but simply can’t. It is essentially incapable of speaking that language; hence the constant lowering of the moral bar to appeal to people’s baser and more tawdry instincts, and the popular “rating” of universities for their partying and drinking. As the BYU football coach explained this week, sort of: “I don’t know that those not inclined to understand, will ever understand.” Indeed.

7 Comments

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