Where is the Jewish Religious Left?
Today on the MySpace.com group MySpace Jews, I was confronted by one of my right-wing co-religionists. While I am used to having unpopular political viewpoints -- especially since the 2004 election -- head-to-head confrontations like this are blessedly rare. I try to keep my Jewish conversations centered around Torah, as the Torah is the center of Judaism.
He seemed astounded and appalled at my left-wing opinions -- "I don't understand how could someone be a Torah-observant Jew and be liberal", he eventually admitted after a few heated posts. He decried feminism and liberalism as the downfalls of American Judaism, and stated that unobservant Jews are a symptom of said liberalism.
Following my barrage of expected "WTF"s I felt behooved to write this post.
I find it appalling that Torah-observant people continue to rally around a morally bankrupt GOP. Today's GOP is rife with racism and xenophobia, classism and exploitation, lies and deceit. I find it a hard sell that G-d would endorse the Republican Party. And those who think that He would (chas v'shalom), I would question their understanding of Scripture. The extent to which the GOP is the party of our President is the extent to which it goes against everything I was taught about G-d's Will.
An Op-Ed piece on EURweb.com gives columnist Anthony A. Samad's opinions regarding Bush's much-publicized NAACP visit last week. Mr. Samad writes:
Did the NAACP expect some major revelation from a president that has essentially ignored the civil rights agenda all of his administration? If they did, they are more colored than they were in the 1980s when the agenda was single-handedly dismantled by the Reagan administration.It was no big deal that he “boycotted” the nation’s oldest civil rights group for five years, because he would’ve had nothing to say...
More painful than watching the President give the NAACP a history lesson on slavery—filled with miscalculations..., rhetoric and some sentimentality that bordered insulting with the invoking of King, Lincoln, and Johnson (Lyndon), was watching the NAACP allow the President to ignore the war in Iraq, the Israel-Lebanon conflict, the economy and rising gas prices, and of course, poverty and the urban crisis—which were the conditions that made Katrina such an overwhelming circumstance.
Or perhaps the sentiments expressed in Northern New Jersey:
Where the Bush influence is needed to help African-Americans, he is MIA. He could be developing an economic strategy to replace the disappearing jobs that got African-Americans into the middle class in the last quarter century. Instead his speeches promote illegal immigration as a solution to labor shortages.Bush didn't want to appear in other years because of criticism over the war and social policies. "You've heard the rhetoric and the names they've called me," a petulant president complained in 2004 explaining his refusal to speak at NAACP conventions.
That's the price of leadership, Mr. President. His lowest approval rating from African-Americans has been 12 percent....The IRS threat to audit the NAACP was widely viewed as unwarranted punishment for the organization's former President Julian Bond's criticism of the extreme right-wing positions of the administration.
Columnist Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution asks flat out: "Do they really want black Americans in the GOP? If so, why do so many of them work hard at alienating black voters?" Even Qatar's Peninsula Daily took note. Indeed, NAACP chair Julian Bond was slammed in the Boston Globe for saying:
AT AN EVENT in North Carolina to mark Black History Month last February, Julian Bond, the chairman of the NAACP, unleashed a blistering attack on the Bush administration and the Republican Party.Among other discourtesies, he compared President George W. Bush's judicial appointees to the Taliban and described former Attorney General John Ashcroft, not for the first time, as "J. Edgar Ashcroft." "The Republican Party," Bond was reported as saying, "would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side."
"The voice of G-d in politics" would not leave this many American citizens disenfranchised and certainly would not have allowed fiascos like those which surrounded Katrina to happen. Or perhaps, you are saying that G-d would advocate a society in which 50 percent of the population have to split 2.5 percent of the wealth, leading to what the New York Times Magazine opined about:
"In the United States today, there's a new twist to the familiar plot," she says. "Income inequality used to be about rich versus poor, but now it's increasingly a matter of the ultra-rich versus everyone else."
The Psalmist says "praiseworthy is he who looks after the poor" (Psalm 41) but somehow we are saying that the Creator backs the party of the ultra-rich, which, ironically has created a net loss of 2.3 million jobs since the inception of this current regime?
"Unwavering support for Israel" does benefit millions of Jews. As school vouchers benefit millions of religious citizens. I can not dispute this, nor do I oppose these things.
However, I think it should be simple to understand why a person of faith would feel disenfranchised by a party which ran on "moral values" platforms -- twice. By a party who, whenever it feels backed against a wall, touts abortion and 9/11 deaths as a rallying cry. And this is all domestic issues, fingers would paralyze worldwide attempting to chronicle all the atrocities of the "War on Terror" in one place.
Blocking a Justice Dept. investigation into the legality of NSA domestic wiretapping? Rep. Specter (R-PA) advocating keeping the citizenry in the dark about the "scope" and "future" of said wiretapping?
This is what the Creator wants? To use a Qur'anic quote:
"We say, show your proofs if you are truthful."
Comments
Wait just an, um, matzah-picking minute (avoidance of a racist phrase )! :)
You're right that the Torah calls for justice, morality, and ethics. I DO believe that the liberal ideology traditionally stands up for those goals. This is what makes it possible for me, an Orthodox Jew, to lean left when it comes to domestic politics. But in no way am I left all across the board - when it comes to foreign politics I am starkly more conservative, and if you can understand this, I am conservative on those politics for the same reason that I am liberal with domestic politics. The latter call for justice and ethics, and when it comes to Israel, the Israelis are definitely the targets of injustice and unethical behavior (it’s because the Palestinians don’t have a Pirke Avot in their Q’uran), no matter what propagandist and dishonest spin Palestinians and their supporters put on it. Therefore, my being liberal domestically is in perfect alignment with my conservative defense of Israel – I am defending an oppressed people. As a Jew, it’s become a show of “chutzpah” to defend our own, we are expected to defend others, but chas ve’chalilah we put the same kind of energy behind our own. You’ll be labeled a neo-con real quick if you say that the Israelis and Arabs are bordering on an unlivable situation with each other in Israel. You have to cry peace and bang your chest to show that you really are a compassionate and sensitive person, although banging your chest seems strange if you are not religious.
OK, let me get out what I'm trying to say so I don't ramble so much. Yitz, this is what it comes down to, it's not right (or left) for you to push your political ideology down peoples' throats, and that's a tough thing not to do when you are driven by vision - it's something that I've been criticized for as well in the past. Some of the things that you say, and the tone with which you say them, honestly remind me of some of the Israel-hating, Jew-hating liberals with which I used to argue to the bone back in the day. Their viewpoints are what eventually disillusioned me with much of what liberalism was starting to stand for and I moved to the right on Israel spectrum. I used to say that to be “pro-Israel” was to be “pro-Palestinian,” defended myself when I was railed by my Jewish friends, but eventually realized that much of liberalism suffered from a hate that was anti-Semitic in nature and I had no place for it. You can have your opinions regardless of what anyone says, but for a person such as yourself who is conservative when it comes to Israeli politics, you spend much more time on your blog decrying violations related to racism. Mind you, racism sucks and it needs to be eliminated. Judaism is “big enough” for people from all walks of life and for all viewpoints, because it is a Tree of Life and therefore racism is one thing that the Torah decries. We Jews are told to love the convert – in my mind a person who converts is not a convert, he/she is a Jew, period. I’m about to say something that might be construed very politically incorrect – Judaism should not be used as a pulpit by which to make an issue of intense personal interest to you mainstream, everybody has the obligation to do this, Jew and non-Jew
. However, racial profiling of Arabs in America is not the same at all as racial profiling of blacks, who have done nothing to deserve that treatment. Black Americans are Americans and they want a piece of the pie, but profiling of Arabs means that there is a contingency of Arabs that were coming to America with known purposes. We have less of a problem with that here now, say, than Europe, because we did something about it. You don’t get rights in a country until you stop saying that you would like to destroy it and until you say you want to contribute to it. This is the same exact view that I have on Israel with regards to Arabs.
Posted by: Yaniv Gerowitz | July 26, 2006 06:43 PM
when looking at "generalities" it seems to me that if G-d were to step foot on our "America" and listen for a bit about the going's on of our society, He would pay much more attention to a party that AGAIN IN GENERAL stands for welfare reform in the form of education for those unable to afford this luxury for themselves, a party who is interested in cleaning the air we breathe and our G-d given forrests rather than a party actually even SUGGESTING that we begin digging for oil in national forrests, and YES YES YES a party that i imagine would not have stood for what happened during Katrina, to people in the south and people who are poor poor poor.
You know there are times when i look at whats going on in our world today, and think, if G-d is watching us, watching us all, and sees the way we're living and the things that we do, how beyond tears must He be? I'm a registered democrat, even tho i see the reality that when it comes down to it, politicians are really all the same, but it makes me happy that at least SOME of my tax dollars are going to help others who cant help themselves. isn't that what life is all about? i mean, i dont konw what others take from torah but i have read that it should be the position of jews not to want to give all their money away, but that if you can suceed, do it, because it helps you to share THAT MUCH MORE with people who are less fortunate. shouldnt we as jews stand up, as chosen people, and be that much more holy, that much more caring, that much more tollerant of each others differences and make a point of helping others out?
i think that people get so caught up in the politics they forget what its about, its about trying to find harmony among people with differences. how can we rant on and on about people not being accepting of jews for being different and then come down on one of our own for trying to be caring for his fellow man? it makes no sense to me at all.
this is a fantastic article y love. my kippah is off to you my friend.
Posted by: e | July 26, 2006 10:39 PM
Again, mostly with ya. Republican politicians have a pretty cynical relationship with religion, and their economic stances tend to almost always be regressive(ie flat tax or purely sales based tax system). However I think Specter is one of the good guys. I'm with him on the wiretapping program. Sure I'm pissed that the president allowed the NSA to forget about warrants that could even be gotten retroactively. But I'm more pissed that it got out, because by that tactic being confirmed, we have lost a strategic advantage over terrorists. It's like cutting off your head to remove a brain tumor.
Posted by: simon | July 27, 2006 10:41 AM
In response to "e's" comment, if I may.
Oh man, I totally agree with the Jewish obligation of caring for our fellow man; how can I disagree, it’s a mitzvah! The point is that we Jews, who have this innate and almost obsessive desire to help people and love our enemy, have yet to accurately define “caring for our fellow man.” Some Jews have this idea that we have to take care of our fellow man so that we’ll be accepted by the nations surrounding us, this “Please accept me. See? I’m helping people, I’m not greedy” attitude. I think that’s real unhealthy. The Pirke Avot in Chapter One says to not be like servants who serve their Master for the sake of receiving a reward, but like servants who serve their Master not for the sake of receiving one. We should help our fellow man because G-d has told us to, not because we want to kiss the butt of some Gentile nations around us. We don’t have to answer to them. However, though, I do find it annoying when (and if) Orthodox Jews see themselves as separated from the suffering around them, and I think that caring and true compassion is the remedy for that, all things prescribed in the Torah. I totally agree with your first paragraph so I won’t say anything about it, except that it’s holy to see a Jew with a kippah and tzitzit and a fat wallet sending some money to charitable organizations. It’s much better to see that than to see one of our secular brethren giving to his heart’s content. It’s almost as if giving tzedakah for your own emotional/spiritual well being is cheapened if it’s not done for G-d. It seems that it’s better to give a smaller amount of money with yirat Shamayim than to give a huge, crazy amount but with yirat goyim.
Yeah, and nothing but love for ya, of course.
Posted by: Yaniv Gerowitz | July 27, 2006 09:41 PM
Oh yeah, sorry, I forgot to add this. On the other hand of what I said about Jews with kippas, tzitziyot, and fat wallets giving to organizations, there are plenty of Gentile organizations in the US that give money and goods up the whazoo to other Gentiles, such as the Salvation Army and Junk for Jesus, enough that the remaining 2% of the population that are American Jews should give to other Jews. Jews have to give to Jews AND to Gentiles just to show that we are true to our word? If I recall, Gentiles also have an obligation to G-d. I don't really see a moral problem with that; Gentiles give to Gentiles and Jews to Jews, I'm sure there is some Noachide backing to that principle.
Peace, Yaniv...
Posted by: Yaniv Gerowitz | July 27, 2006 09:54 PM
This is in resonse to
"e's" July 26th comment. I don't have a specific answer to that question, but I do have one as to the fallacy that G-d is INHERENTLY interested in the Democratic party, which can also be read "liberal?"
It's like this. The first point is that the Torah is neither solely conservative nor liberal according to today's social and political paradigms. The Torah says both not to have sex before marriage (today considered a conservative value) and to give to the poor (today considered a liberal value). The Torah has an excellent way of presenting all of these things to us in one group; G-d's Word. The Torah challenges our contemporary understandings of what it means to be a liberal or a conservative. When was the last time you saw a sexually puritanical liberal or a moralistic/ethical conservative? Usually these people are religious (and Orthodox Jews).
The second point is that the Jewish monarchy started with King Shaul and it was a theocracy. By today's political paradigms a theocracy is the most backward, primitive, fascist neo-con entity on the face of the Earth, but the Jewish monarchy was closer to true peace than anything we see in the world today or have seen since. (non-observant) Jews to go the Wailing Wall and they offer prayers but are they praying for the installment of a Jewish theocracy in Israel?! Haha, probably not! The Sanhedrin was also a theocracy, which, by the way, is why the secular academic intellegentsia (like in universities) trash the Monarchy and the Sanhedrin in their classrooms, and some of these people are Jews.
If we're talking about liberalism in regards to economic policies, we have to wonder then what the economic policy of King Shaul's, David, Shlomo's, etc... monarchies was. How were the poor treated in this theocracy for example and how was the money used? I recall that the Tanakh says that there were people in King Shlomo's Kingdom who felt overtaxed. Have you ever wondered how a spiritually-inclined Jewish libertarian views a Sanhedrin? How about an Orthodox libertarian (I know one but I don't know his views on such matters)? The point is that is it so inherently true that the liberal party is the "Party of G-d?" It seems that the Torah itself is the way to go, which is a "combination" of liberal economic policies and conservative moral policies. Hehe, here's a good question; if someone COMMANDS you to give money to the poor, is that a liberal or a conservative value? Liberal tends to be expressed as "free and ethical" and conservative tends to be expressed as "regulated and drab," so what do you call it when you have a system that regulates kindness? You have to call it Torah! Hahaha.
Peace, Yaniv...
Posted by: Yaniv Georwitz | August 8, 2006 11:38 PM