Dangerous Bedfellows

I've been trying to figure out a way to express this for some time. Then last week, I began a new chabura, and found what I think is the right language.

We are learning the book of Yeshayah (Isaiah). One of Yeshayah's persistent messages for the leaders of his day (2500-2700 years ago) was a warning against alliances with the nations around us, like Egypt, Assyria and Babylon. The same message came from the prophet Yirmiyah. Their point was that we should rely on G-d, and that these new friends shared neither our faith in G-d, nor our values. Further, the alliances were also simply bad investments: some nations violated our trust, while others were too weak to help us. In the end, we paid the price by falling prey either to our "allies" or to our foes.

But we've never outgrown our national predilection for partnerships. Whether because we love peace, or because we are insecure in our own identity, or because we fear assault, we tend to accept every olive branch extended our way - regardless of the quality of the match. This led, for example, to an awkward relationship with apartheid South Africa in the 1970's, engaging in trade even as Israel condemned apartheid on the world stage.

Today, the ally many Jews in Israel and abroad seek is the new American President Donald Trump. Applauding his election may have started as a way to spite his predecessor, but Israeli officials have come to speak of him as a friend and ally.

True, the new president has spoken positively of Israel and negatively of her enemies, and has promised significant steps in Israel's apparent favour. Nonetheless, one wonders what Yeshayah or Yirmiyah, would have to say. Even for those who are fans of Trump, and aside from Trump's many sins, presumably the prophets who opposed alliances with Assyria, Babylon and Egypt would not look more kindly on identifying closely with an American president, whose list of deficiencies includes the fact that he will face election in just a few short years. Swept into office by national reaction to the overreaches of the left, President Trump may face a broom of his own in 2020 - and what will be the fate of those who yoked their causes to his?

Normally, I am an optimist, but I fear the timeless messages of Yeshayah may come back to haunt our nation.

Avshalom, King Yoshiyahu and President Obama walk into a bar

From my vantage point, it seems that Avshalom, King Yoshiyahu and the American Democratic Party all fell victim to a common leadership mistake.

About 3,000 years ago, wicked Avshalom launched a failed coup against his father, King David. Achitofel, described in Tanach as the greatest counselor of all time, advised Avshalom to lead an immediate assault to eliminate his father, but instead he listened to the flattery of a shepherd who said that the whole nation was on his side, and he had already won. If Avshalom had not taken the nation's support for granted, he might not have taken three lances in the heart. (See Shemuel II 16-18)

About four centuries after Avshalom's death, righteous King Yoshiyahu suffered not three lances, but three hundred. The prophet Yirmiyah warned him not to go to war against Egypt, but he didn't listen; Yoshiyahu thought the nation was behind his attempts to restore Torah law, and that their merit would ensure victory. The result was his death, and the end of his pious campaign. (See Eichah Rabbah 1:53)

Which brings us to Donald Trump's surprising victory in this week's American election. Analysts will debate this upset for a long time to come, but from my perspective there is at least one clear lesson in the rejection of President Obama's legacy by sixty million American voters: Never take for granted that the nation is behind you .

This president passed healthcare, trade deals, the Iran nuclear agreement, environmental legislation and more by aggressive lobbying or executive order. As the New York Times wrote, "Once skeptical of executive power, Obama has come to embrace it. Mr. Obama will leave the White House as one of the most prolific authors of major regulations in presidential history." Pollsters and Hillary Clinton's team thought that the president's supporters and beneficiaries outweighed those who had been legislatively overpowered over the past eight years ; it was only Tuesday night that we learned that given one vote per person, the balance of power would swing the other way. In politics as in physics, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

To my amateur eye, the shared experience of Avshalom, King Yoshiyahu and the Democrats teaches a critical lesson in leadership. As Mishlei 28:14 preaches, "Fortunate is the one who is always afraid." A little bit of insecurity in our leadership, a little less bullying and a little more bargaining, can go a long way.

"Brought to you by..."

A few people have tried to console me post-election by noting that Jewish tradition credits G-d as the coronator of kings, הממליך מלכים.

Somehow, though, I find little comfort in the idea that Donald Trump is brought to you by the Maker of Pharaoh, Nevuchadnezzar and Titus...

Of Donald Trump and Khizr Khan: How Trump could be a force for good

Driving through rural Western Pennsylvania this week, I twice found myself behind cars with Donald Trump bumper stickers. It was a bit of surprise; I know he has many full-throated supporters, but having lived in Canada throughout the current electoral cycle, I've never met one. I know people who mistrust Hillary Clinton enough to vote for Trump, but no one who would actually sport a Trump logo.

Seeing the bumper stickers catalyzed the following thought: Donald Trump is not the first leader of angry people, who view themselves as disenfranchised; look at some of the figures who claimed to speak for the American civil rights movement - Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. And permit me to oversimplify the leaders of such people into two types: 1) Those who rabble-rouse, catering to their feelings of victimization, and 2) Those who lead, inspiring their followers to something better than selfishness and hatred.

To my mind, the followers of Trump have legitimate concerns: Finances. Terrorism. Basic Freedoms. But so do the people on the other side of these debates. The question is whether Trump will demonize everyone on that other side, or whether he will lay out the challenging questions which face society, and make a reasoned argument for his solution.

Khizr Khan's speech was a perfect opportunity to do the latter. Here's what Donald Trump could have said to Khizr Khan:

I am sorry for your loss, and grateful beyond words for your sacrifice. I would never want to deny you, and the many others like you, anything of what America has to offer. Under the Constitution we both uphold, Muslims are entitled to the same protections and opportunities as Jews, Christians, atheists, and so on. 
But here is my problem: The same people who killed your son are trying to kill the sons and daughters of everyone living in America - all genders, all races, are vulnerable to them here. I want to stop them, but it's very hard. The best way I have come up with to do that is to identify them by their proclaimed beliefs. 
My system is not a good system, and the broad net it casts will include people who are honest, hard-working, good people, like you. But let me ask you: what alternative would you suggest? Because look at the headlines around the world - the current system of combating terrorism in the name of Islam isn't working.

If Trump were a thoughtful and empathetic human being, that's what he could have said, and it could have led to a meaningful conversation. Too bad that's not the case.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan? Or is she too hard on terror?

With Justice Stevens retiring, people are talking about Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court, again (see 2004 and 2009).

Some have suggested that President Obama would not nominate Ms. Kagan because she is Jewish. The Harvard Crimson writes:

Kagan’s religious affiliation may also impede her nomination. Justice Stevens is the Court’s only Protestant, and if Kagan, who is Jewish, were appointed, the court would be composed of six Catholics and three Jews.
According to Tushnet, that issue “has not quite surfaced yet,” but there have been some indications that it could factor into Obama’s decision.

Picking up on the same point, NBC Chicago points out Diane Wood might be a more likely candidate, for her Protestancy:

Also, in a quirk of history, Stevens is the lone remaining Protestant on the Supreme Court. (A hundred years ago, all the judges were Protestant.) Wood could fill in for him there, too: she lives in the suburbs, plays oboe in the North Shore Chamber Orchestra and is on her third husband.
It’s hard to get much WASPier than that.

But I see another reason why Kagan might not be nominated: Her defense of a law prohibiting aid for Hizballah, as recorded in the New York Times:

Solicitor General Elena Kagan defended the law at issue in the case, which bars providing material support to terrorist organizations, as “a vital weapon in this nation’s continuing struggle against international terrorism.”
Even seemingly benign help is prohibited, Ms. Kagan said.
“Hezbollah builds bombs,” she said of the militant Islamic group. “Hezbollah also builds homes. What Congress decided was when you help Hezbollah build homes, you are also helping Hezbollah build bombs. That’s the entire theory behind the statute.”

I can see President Obama overlooking Ms. Kagan's Jewish roots, or even favoring them as a way to balance his horrible press over Israel ("Some of my best friends are Jewish..."). But a justice who openly declares that Hizballah builds bombs? No way this candidate makes it on to that man's court.

Barack Obama, Kenneth Wherry and the Nobel Prize

I don't want to be yet another humbug, rain-on-the-parade blogger bashing the choice of President Barack Obama for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Nonetheless: I believe that the President, like most of Washington, is naive about the world's foreign policy issues. He's intellectually sharp, he's well-read, but he is also naive.

It's more complex than that, of course; President Obama's presentation is actually something of a paradox. His words are wonderful, displaying a sense of how the world works, honoring the fact that cultures are truly different from each other in values and not only in language and dress.

But, at the same time, his actions in the Middle East, in the Persian Gulf, in Russia, in China, in North Korea, betray an inability to translate that understanding into action. He acts with the whole world as though they were Westerners, offering them the same incentives and disincentives one would offer a Westerner and anticipating a Westerner's reaction, without any sensitivity to the nuances involved.

* Example: Promises of economic incentives don't move someone whose highest value is his honor and self-respect (China, and trade protectionism; not to mention the fact that the US needs China in a major way. See The Economist here.).

* Example: Incremental assistance doesn't gain the support of people who, because of their cultural values, will settle for nothing less than 100% of the pie (Hamas; see Khaled Meshaal's June 2009 interview with Time's Joe Klein here).

* Example: Threats of economic sanctions don't impress governments who believe their citizens are best-served by leaders who will not bend - and whose own citizens parrot the same (Iran; see CNN's pre-election report here).

* Example: Arguments from law are meaningless to nations who believe the law, or at least its application, is wrong (Israel - see Obama's reference to "the occupation" in his Cairo speech).

The President's practical naivete reminds me of the same trait in Senator Kenneth Wherry, Republican of Nebraska, who said in 1940, "With Gd’s help, we will lift Shanghai up and up, ever up, until it is just like Kansas City.”

See David Brinkley's Washington Goes to War for more examples of pre-WWII Washington's provincialism. A lot of it rings true in Washington today.

If the Nobel is meant to reward good intentions, then I agree - they found someone who is well-intentioned. But I think the standard should not be desire, but success.

Ruth and Barack, the Ideal and the Real, and Jerusalem

Ruth the Moabite had been ruined by her association with Jews; she had married a wealthy young man, and then he had died, along with his brother and his father. The family’s wealth had disappeared. Now her mother-in-law Naami was preparing to abandon her and return to a place where Moabites were persona non grata - and Ruth insisted on accompanying her to that hostile land, without a penny to their names.

Naami was astounded; what could this young girl want with her, and her people? What practical gain could be in store for an impoverished, friendless Moabite in a Jewish land?

But Ruth insisted, “אל תפגעי בי לעזבך לשוב מאחריך, Don’t plead with me to leave you, to cease following you . Where you will go, I will go. Where you will sleep, I will sleep. Your nation is my nation; your Gd is my Gd. Where you will die, I will die, and there I will be buried. May Gd act against me, and may Gd do more against me, if anything but death will separate us.”

The megilah doesn’t tell us what inspired Ruth, only that she was idealistically certain that this was the nation and the Gd to which she would commit her life. באשר תלכי אלך – Where you will go, I will go.


Contrast Ruth’s idealism with the survivalist pragmatism of a man named Barak, a Jewish general of some 3200 years ago.

In Barak’s day, the Jews lived under oppression by the Canaanites. They cried out to Gd, and their prophetess, Devorah, commanded Barak in the name of HaShem to lead a rebellion against the Canaanites. She even gave him a military strategy, instructing him which tribes to take with him, and where to engage in battle.

But Barak, a realist, was intimidated by the task, and he refused to lead alone. Instead, Barak offered Devorah a bargain which reversed the language of Ruth’s idealism. He said, “אם תלכי עמי והלכתי ואם לא תלכי לא אלך, If you will go with me then I will go, but if you will not go then I will not go either.”


Judaism tends toward Barak’s pragmatism:
• We focus on this world rather than meditate on the reward waiting for us in the afterlife;
• We save lives even in violation of the Torah’s mitzvot;
• We recognize the authority of civil government;
• We override Rabbinic law regularly for שעת הדחק, cases of need.

Nonetheless, Judaism has a long history of honoring the quixotic charge of the idealist:
• Avraham and Sarah set up an Eshel inn at the northern tip of the Negev desert, and welcomed travelers in the name of HaShem;
• The Jews at Har Sinai declared “נעשה ונשמע, We will do and we will hear,” blindly pledging obedience to a law they did not yet know;
• Our vision of mashiach is of an עני ורוכב על החמור, a pauper riding a donkey, anointed for his piety rather than for the pragmatic values of wealth or social status.

To borrow a passage from Man of La Mancha, “Maddest of all [is] to see life as it is, and not as it should be. ” This emphasis on idealism, on seeing the world as it should be, is a most Jewish concept; Judaism nods to the pragmatic, but it reveres the idealistic.


We have just completed a seven-week journey from Egyptian slavery to Divine revelation at Sinai, a trek during which an entire nation was challenged to metamorphose from Barak-style pragmatists to Ruth-style idealists.

A slave cannot afford ideology; he is too busy trying to satisfy his master and avoid harm. Through the desert trip that slavish pragmatism was quite visible, too; the constant attention to food and water reflected a mind that could not see past its most immediate needs.

But, eventually, this nation stood at Sinai and established that same נעשה ונשמע attitude which would become Ruth’s mantra. On Shavuos we read Ruth’s story for many reasons, but surely one is her willingness to embrace a Torah about which she knew little, her personal נעשה ונשמע.


Certainly, a Ruth-based yearning for the ideal can set the Jew at odds with the world in which he lives and with which he must make some peace; for an example, look no further than the news of the past two weeks, regarding the international stances on the future of Yerushalayim.

The United States, led by a different Barack, is opting for a pragmatic, survivalist stance; ditto for Europe, as expressed last week by France. They look at Yerushalayim on a practical level: The Arab world will never be satisfied with a Middle East that does not incorporate a state of Palestine, with its capital in Yerushalayim. The wrath of that Arab world, seen from a pragmatist’s perspective, is a lot more dangerous than the outrage of the Jewish world – so guess who wins?

But we know how a Devorah would reply: Yerushalayim is not a random hilltop, it is the ideal of ideals within Judaism!

The walls of Yerushalayim encircle critical elements of Jewish history; just two weeks ago they found yet another shard with an inscription dating back to the period of the first Beit haMikdash, apparently marked with the name of a king mentioned in Tanach.

Those walls also encircle the essence of Jewish unity, a city owned not by any one tribe but by the nation as a whole. To this city, Jews would flock for aliyah laregel every Yom Tov. To this city, Jews would bring their maaser sheni tithe, beautifying the markets with their produce. And to this city, Jews would come every Shavuot with their Bikkurim/first fruits and give them to the kohanim.

And those walls also encircle the essence of Jewish spirituality, the Beit haMikdash and its associated triple-corded bond between individual and nation and HaShem. It is not for nothing that the sages speak of a Yerushalayim shel Maalah, a heavenly Yerushalayim parallel to Yerushalayim here on earth, a city above in which HaShem can be found when we gather in the city below.

For the Jew, descendant of the idealistic Ruth, Yerushalayim is the indispensable ideal, and this sets him at odds with the world’s survivalists, whether the military Barak of Tanach or the presidential Barack of today.

To be a descendant of idealistic Ruth often means to be at odds with the world’s pragmatic Baraks, and we must find a way to mediate between those poles.


Today we celebrate Shavuot, and we also mark the engagement of __________ and _________.

Building a Jewish home requires a blending of the real and the ideal, but the ideal must always reign supreme.

In the beginning it’s all ideal; the thoughts of how married life will look are untempered by real experience, the conversations are about ideas more than they are about reality. Certainly, an engaged couple deals with the specific facts of the wedding, of where to live, of what sort of home to have, but it’s without the nuts and bolts that make up daily life, the price of yogurt, the questions of who will prepare dinner, mow the lawn and take out the trash, the specifics of paying bills on time. Then, once a couple becomes responsible for a home, for each other, for shared life, that’s when reality kicks in and ideology can be a struggle.

To build a strong Jewish home requires both Ruth and Barak, but more Ruth than Barak. Yes, the Jewish family must make concessions to reality, but the ideological commitment of building a Jewish home, of having active Torah study at every meal, of having Shabbat guests and a tzedakah box and sefarim, must remain primary.

[Here I'll cut the web version, since the rest is about this couple in particular.]

-
No notes to add for this one, for lack of time, but there's a lot more to say sometime on Judaism, the real and the ideal...

Senator Arlen Specter, former Congressman Pat Toomey and Israel, from my experiences

First, let’s drop all of the faux-surprise about Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter jumping to the Democratic Party.

Anyone who’s been paying attention saw this coming miles away; as the Senator himself said yesterday, his ideology just doesn’t fit with that of today’s strongest Republican voices.

Add to that a serious 2010 Republican primary challenge from former Congressman Pat Toomey, and Pennsylvania’s rule that a candidate who loses a primary cannot run indepedently in the same election, and the writing was on the wall in letters large enough for Belshazzar to read it unassisted.

So for an Israel supporter, where are Senator Specter and former Congressman Toomey, in terms of Israel and the Middle East?

When I first moved to Allentown (2001), Pat Toomey was our local Congressman. I met him a few times, when he came to speak at Jewish community events as well as in at least one meeting in his office arranged by the ZOA.

When Toomey ran against Specter in the 2004 Senatorial primary, I was lobbied by a national Jewish organization to support Specter. Part of their argument was that Toomey would not support Israel, but in this I believe they were incorrect.

Congressman Toomey was always staunchly pro-Israel, understanding the need for Israel’s security as well as the perfidy of the Arafat government. He did place one priority above all, and that was his focus on fiscal responsibility; I recall that at one point he voted against a Foreign Aid budget bill, which included aid for Israel, because the budget had not been slashed overall as he wished. But, still, he was a supporter of Israel, and I believe he likely remains the same.

On the other hand, Senator Specter is solidly pro-Israel as well.

I have met Senator Specter a couple of times, when he has spoken locally. There is no question in my mind that he supports Israel; AIPAC certainly thinks so, having invited him to speak at their national events more than once. He does get accused, from time to time, of being weak in his support – several months ago he was accused of unthinkingly providing Syria’s Assad a photo op while on a message-carrying mission - but I don’t give those accusations too much credence; his track record is simply too solid for that.

I do worry about the way this party-change will empower Israel’s opponents in the Senate. There are many legislators who would prefer to win the favor of the world rather than stand up for America’s values, and most of those legislators inhabit the Democratic Party. But as someone who has heard both of these men, who has tracked their careers and who has met them up close, I believe that both will solidly support the State of Israel.

I pray that I am right.

The Rabbi and the (Digital) Television Converter

For those who do not live in the US, or just have not been paying attention: The government of the United States of America has decided that a top item on our national agenda should be the conversion of television signals from analog to digital.

That’s right: We may not be able to bail out the banks, provide national healthcare or bring peace to the Middle East, but we can give you better television.

Sounds like bread and circuses to me, but anyway…

Since the old-fashioned Torczyner television depends on broadcast signals rather than cable, we need to install a converter box to change the digital signal into analog heiroglyphics our TV will comprehend. If we refuse, we will lose all reception in the next few months - PBS has already switched to digital, so that's gone.

Fortunately – I kid you not, you non-Americans! – the US Government has provided us with a $40 coupon so that we could afford the converter. (Re-read comments above about banks and healthcare, please.)

But it’s not going to be quite that easy for us to get better television, oh, no. We have to install it. Should be easy, right? Plug green wire into green socket type stuff? No challenge for the guy who adds RAM to his desktop, installs outdoor lighting, and opens up the VCR to fix it?

Not so much; the following was the initial line of instructions in the one-page installation guide for our Sansonic FT-300A ATSC Digital-to-Analog Converter:

Make sure you have a good antenna you have 50/50 chance your old analog antenna will not work well even if its an expensive outdoor antenna the signal has changed to digital, all older antennas are analog the only way to find out is connect it.
GOOD LUCK

I kid you not. I did not remove any apostrophes or add any punctuation. Even the GOOD LUCK, in caps, is theirs. So this is going to be a challenge.

In truth, I have mixed feelings about the conversion, anyway. I didn’t want a television in the first place.

My reluctance is not due to the usual concern for keeping the outside world out of the living room – First, the TV isn’t in the living room, it’s consigned to a hutch of ignominy befitting its lowly status in our home. Second, if I were in the business of barring the blathering ether, I would have to take a stronger stance regarding the Internet.

It’s not a concern that I will be drawn into wasting time on it, either. Taxi and The Muppet Show – see this great article on the origin of each Muppet, by the way – were the last great television shows, save perhaps The Simpsons. (I think I could probably get into RenReb's beloved 24, but I don't want the addiction.) Besides, I don’t have the time to waste sitting in front of a box.

No, my issue is for my kids and their standards for leisure activity.

Right now, we get only two channels – PBS and a very fuzzy NBC – because we live in a valley and have no connection to a roof antenna. There’s no real temptation for the kids, outside of videos. But this digital converter will bring more options, if I understand the PR material correctly.

My kids’ standards for entertainment are immature, and they have lots of free time at their disposal. I want television to be something they do for entertainment on an occasional basis. I want them to see TV the way most people view going to the movies.

I don’t want them to think of television as a normal part of their lives, a normal way to spend their time, like reading, eating, learning Torah, using Lego and playing sports. It’s too easy for children to accept the television’s unchallenging form of relaxation, and became disenchanted with reading or learning or playing challenging games.

In the end, though, I will give in and – if I should receive the GOOD LUCK wished for me by the instructions – install the converter. It’s just going to be one more test of our parenting skills.

GOOD LUCK, indeed.

New New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Views on Israel and the Middle East

It's hard to use Google to find information on Kirsten Gillibrand and her views on the Middle East (particularly because another candidate for her new senatorial position was named "Steve Israel"!), but here's what I can find:

*She has supported legislations on Iran sanctions

*She is not a partisan Democrat

* She posts her daily schedule online - a practice close to my heart

* You can find her voting record here

* A dozen or so of her constituents didn't like her support for Israel in the Gaza War

*And AIPAC's Near East Report from November 2006, on the 110th Congress, included this on Ms. Gillibrand:
Gillibrand has met with AIPAC activists and staff. In her position paper on the US-Israel relationship, Gillibrand wrote, "I will be an unwavering supporter of the special friendship that exists between the US and Israel and will continue to assure Israel's strategic military advantage in the region."

I'm sure that those who don't support Israel won't agree with me on this - but I'm glad to know that the new Senator supports democracy and human rights in the Middle East.

President Barack Obama's White House Blog: Observations and Suggestions

CNN reports here that the Obama White House website has a new face, and they are certainly correct. Long on policy and substance, this site has the look of a campaign site, hungry to communicate with the world and publish its message directly to its audience.

Observations:
I like the fact that President Obama’s website bio is brief. (I suppose that when the heading says “President of the United States,” you don’t really need to mention much more.)

Two items of interest in the “Agenda” section:

I’m fascinated by the fact that pretty much every sentence says, “Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe…” I wonder if that inclusion was part of Senator Biden’s agreement to become Vice President.

Of particular interest: Israel is addressed in two separate places in the “Foreign Policy” category, once under Renewing American Diplomacy and once under Israel.

The former includes a section titled “Israeli-Palestinian Conflict” and focusses on realizing a two-state solution. The latter includes “Ensure a strong US-Israel partnership,” “Support Israel’s right to self-defense” and “Support foreign assistance to Israel.”

I have no objection to what the site says in either place, but I feel it would have made more sense to have included both sets of comments under “Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” (And if the site’s point is that the US-Israel relationship is about more than just the conflict, then the sub-section “Support Israel’s right to self-defense” really belongs under the “Israel-Palestinian Conflict” sub-heading.)

What I would like to see:
1) I like the “Office of Public Liaison” concept (which already existed under President Bush), and hope it will be developed. Right now, it’s just a “Contact Us” form.

2) Under “Agenda,” I would very much like to see a daily or weekly list of the president’s key appointments, even without specific times. Security, secrecy and spontaneity may make a precise listing impossible, but knowing which briefings are going on, and what has the president's attention and with whom the president is working, would be a great step toward the promised transparency.

3) I would love to see a permanent focus on the ordinary citizen, especially since that has been a key part of the Obama appeal. I’m thinking a small corner or sidebar photo on the page, linking to an article about that person – an obituary of someone who had passed away, or a newspaper article about his/her achievement. The achievement doesn’t have to be as large as a CNN Heroes type; it could just reflect the life of an American citizen. The photo and article would change daily, or weekly.

4) Of course, I would love to see the President author a post or two in his blog, not as a press release or transcript of a speech, but just an everyday type of comment, the sort that appears on any other blog.

5) And most important:
It is evident that many of the people who have fallen in love with presidential politics have done so because of the star power of the new president, and not because of a newfound love for their country, or the American democratic system. That’s fine – as long as their love deepens into an appreciation for the system and country itself.

To aid that transition, I would like to see a permanent feature, such as a sidebar photo leading to an article, on specific legislators. Whether municipal, state, or federal, regardless of party affiliation, the site could spotlight people who are making positive contributions to government, and could thereby encourage others to become involved.

Of course, there is an inherent risk that with such a spotlight you accidentally endorse the next Ted Stevens; you would need some serious vetting, and the wording would have to eschew the laudatory. But if you did one every week or every two weeks, that should be manageable – and it might go a ways toward inspiring interest in government and appreciation for the best of America.

[And one more: Having just attempted to submit some of these suggestions on the Comment Form on the website - change your programming so that "Enter" does not automatically submit the form. It's quite frustrating.]

Eric Holder for Attorney General: Good and Bad for the Jews?

Per CNN, Eric Holder is President-Elect Barack Obama’s choice for Attorney General.

My gut instinct is that this is, as they say, “bad for the Jews.” Not because of Holder, personally, but because his confirmation hearings are bound to include the infamous pardon of Marc Rich.

The Rich pardon is a perfect example of the tarring ethnicities undergo when one of their own is involved in wrongdoing. I can’t imagine that any responsible party in the Jewish community would have endorsed this pardon - a trader who cheated the financial system, then wrapped himself in the Israeli flag by getting himself an Israeli passport (along with a Spanish passport) in trying to avoid extradition. But when Bill Clinton pardoned him, it was viewed as an example of Jewish malfeasance and influence.

Holder, at the time, was the deputy attorney general, and through a series of events described well here by the Washington Post, he allowed Jack Quinn to push the pardon through. So we are pretty much guaranteed that anti-Obama Congressmen will bring up this pardon as a way to harrass Holder’s appointment. And we will have to endure Marc Rich/Jewish/Israel-oriented headlines.

But, on the other hand, Holder might have a positive impact in another case - the AIPAC trial. The accused AIPAC officials relayed - to the press, to other AIPAC officials and to an Israeli diplomat - information US government officials gave them (in a sting operation), regarding anti-Israel operations in Iraq. The AIPAC guys argue that they had thought they were permitted to speak of the information they had been given.

As noted a couple of days ago in The Forward, Holder is known to be strongly in favor of First Amendment liberties, including free speech. This may help the AIPAC defendants.

So I am split on what to expect with a Holder nomination, but, ultimately, all of this points to a more central point: Realistically, Jews must accept that our kin are so involved in so many ways in so many different parts of American society, that any nominee is going to raise similar issues. Whether it’s Pollard or Rich or AIPAC or Abramoff or Agriprocessors or any other Jew or Jewish institution involved with the wrong side of the law, the bottom line is that we are going to have to get used to headlines like those we’ll be seeing during Holder’s confirmation hearings.

Such is Jewish life in the USA. The only antidote of which I am aware is to make sure we have plenty of positive Jewish examples, so that whenever someone brings up a Marc Rich, we can respond with a kiddush HaShem (sanctification of Gd's Name), “That’s not a representative. Look, instead, at…,” citing numerous examples of ישראל אשר בך אתפאר, Jews of whom Gd can be proud, and we can be proud.

I voted!

There are a dozen or more things I should be doing tonight, including-
Preparing Tuesday morning’s “Practical Ethics” shiur;
Preparing Tuesday night’s in-depth Gemara shiur;
Answering a batch of emails;
Preparing for my trip to Israel next week;
And so on.

But I'm dealing with a bad cold, it rained here all day (sorry to anyone who expected to see the third game of the World Series earlier tonight, but we got soaked today), and I haven’t taken any post-Simchas Torah break, so it's hard getting in gear.

On the up-side: I voted tonight. I expect to be in Israel on Election Day, so I filled out an Absentee Ballot.

I enjoy voting, as a way to express citizenship. I don't recognize several candidates on the local ballot, and I have no clue what an Auditor General does, but I felt, for the most part, like an informed American doing his civic duty. Rav Moshe Feinstein’s famous 1984 endorsement of voting stands out in my mind:

On reaching the shores of the United States, Jews found a safe haven. The rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights have allowed us the freedom to practice our religion without interference and to live in this republic in safety.

A fundamental principle of Judaism is hakaras hatov -- recognizing benefits afforded us and giving expression to our appreciation. Therefore, it is incumbent upon each Jewish citizen to participate in the democratic system which safeguards the freedoms we enjoy. The most fundamental responsibility incumbent on each individual is to register and to vote.

Therefore, I urge all members of the Jewish community to fulfill their obligations by registering as soon as possible, and by voting. By this, we can express our appreciation and contribute to the continued security of our community.

Voting is usually pretty easy for me, because our shul is a polling place; I just walk upstairs from my office when the turnout gets light, and it takes only a minute. This year it’ll cost me a Forever Stamp, but that’s okay. Like I said, civic duty.

Best part: I’ll finally be able to tell all of those callers, “I voted already.” Maybe that’ll get them to stop calling.

Or not.

I’ll admit I was confused about one thing, though: I didn’t see Sarah Palin’s name (or Tina Fey’s name, for that matter) anywhere on the ballot.

So I wrote her in for Auditor General.

Judging by the calls I’m getting, I think this is an Obama Nation

[Haveil Havalim is out here.]

While I should be writing my Yom Kippur day derashah…

All right, I just hung up after my third call from an Obama campaign staffer - third in the past five days, that is. That, and I had a visit to my door yesterday, from a polite woman who immediately apologized when I explained it was my Sabbath. And I’ve been invited to an Obama Jewish Community Leadership Committee of the Lehigh Valley meeting for tomorrow night, with a fellow named Daniel Shapiro, billed as Senior Policy Advisor for Senator Barack Obama. (Can't make it - I'm too busy not writing my derashot, as you can see...)

No McCainers have called yet, though; rather surprising for a swing state like Pennsylvania, and the third-largest region therein. And, yes, I’m one of those supervoters the campaigns target. Where are they?!

Obama’s grassroots support here is strong, while McCain’s is invisible.

Of course, this little piece of anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in the greater scheme of electoral politics, but it does cement my personal sense that this election is over; if they're not contesting Pennsylvania, what are they going to contest? Arizona??

The other piece of evidence is the way that McCain/Palin have resorted to Bill Ayers and similar personal attacks. If that’s the best you have, then the Republican campaign chest is as bankrupt as AIG and Lehman Brothers. This campaign could and should be won on issues and policies, whether Iraq and Afghanistan and North Korea and Iran or Wall Street and Healthcare and Energy Policy and the Environment, not on Bill Ayers.

So even if America is, by nature, a country of people who favor small government, limited taxation and government spending, and less regulation in every area, - and I believe it is - I still think we’re going to see a serious vote in favor of Obama/Biden, because of eight years of GWB and because of the Republican camp’s failure to present serious policies to clean up the current domestic and foreign mess.

I think we’re looking at a landslide, a spread on the order of 55%-45% or more nationwide. The pollsters with their six-to-eight-point spreads are actually erring conservatively.

I don’t know whether to be happy or sad about this. I am glad Sarah Palin won’t be Vice President; she’s fun to watch, but I’m not particularly into electing people for the sake of entertainment, even if it is “just” the Vice Presidency. Four years of Dan Quayle in the national news was enough, thank you, and even returning SNL to the ranks of the funny is just not enough to justify it.

I’m Mordechai Torczyner, and I am not endorsing any candidate.

Sarah Palin, 2-year Governor of Alaska, Vice President?

(updated 12:06 PM)

I was thoroughly disheartened after watching last night’s speech by Senator Barack Obama. I heard a lot of beautiful promises, but came away with the sense that the man was promising the world without the means to provide it.

Going line-by-line through the budget to eliminate pork and provide efficiency, and raising taxes on 5% of the population, don’t strike me as ways to foot the bill for everything he discussed. Also, there was no recognition of the work he would have to do to bring people on board. The teachers proposal, for example, was ludicrous - dramatically increase the number of teachers while raising standards for education? You and what army, Senator?

I was disappointed because I really wanted to like Senator Obama, and because I was discouraged by the McCain campaign. If their idea of “new and different” is a campaign ad congratulating Barack Obama, then the Republican party is in deep trouble. I was sure that the final blow would come today with a pick of Tom Ridge or (yuck) Mitt Romney, and that would just kill it entirely.

And then came word about Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, being selected as John McCain’s running mate.

Google Trends shows that 8 of the top 10 searches are Palin-related at the moment. I’m sure quite a few of those are from Democrat strategists wondering how they were caught so flat-footed.

I don’t know whether to be happy or not with Palin as Vice President, but Palin as a candidate sure is a fun thing to think about. Palin may be the only person out there with a shorter resume in public service than Barack Obama. (CNN says, “Congressional Quarterly notes Sarah Palin's other past occupations, including commercial fishing company owner, outdoor recreational equipment company owner and sports reporter.”) I would love to see her debate Joe Biden; against all odds, the Republicans may have found someone who can out-sass him.

I'll admit that I’m not much of a Conservative on domestic issues, so I’m not thrilled that she is a lifetime member of the NRA or that she takes a strong stance against abortion.

I'm disappointed that I can’t find anything substantive about her approach to Israel, or foreign affairs in general. (See, for example, here. And there's nothing on AIPAC's site, although I'll bet that changes soon.)

But you know what? As I said here, I don't really want my chief executive to focus on the Middle East. The less the American (Vice) President sees the Middle East as a legacy trophy, the better. Gd knows they have enough to do, without adding "Pressure Israel and the Palestinians into a bad treaty" to the list.

And I like the fact that she is a maverick, and I love the fact that she is committed to ethics and to eliminating budget pork, even at her own expense. And I am thrilled that she’s not an old white male. Or a young white male, for that matter.

Thank you, Senator McCain; this race just became fun again.

Column: Is there a place for The Compassion Forum in the political process?

This is a column I submitted to The Allentown Morning Call after Sunday night's The Compassion Forum at Messiah College. They ran it here with a few edits.

Note: If this had not been a general readership newspaper, I would have used the term צניעות Tzniut, privacy, to describe the third point below, toward the end of the article. Public discussion of deeply personal beliefs seems to defy that צניעות we are taught to hold dear.

Is there a place for The Compassion Forum in the political process?

Is it hypocritical to wish for spirituality in our political representatives, but to wish equally that they not discuss it in public?

I found myself pondering that question as I sat in the audience at The Compassion Forum at Messiah College on Sunday night, April 13th, watching Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama answer faith-oriented questions both personal and political. As a guest of the Orthodox Union I felt honored to have been invited, but as a Jewish American I felt more than a little uncomfortable.

Certainly, I find nothing inappropriate in a politician incorporating religious beliefs into decisions; just as they rely upon education, upbringing, friends and advisors, so our elected officials may draw on religious beliefs. More, their application of religious beliefs to practical policy displays an encouraging sophistication of faith and depth of thought. Nonetheless, this sort of forum does trigger deep discomfort in many Americans - myself included.

In my view, one problem is that these discussions unnecessarily spotlighted disagreements for voters of different religious persuasions. Many Americans vote based on practical policy and track record and overlook differences in religious philosophy, and many of those voters don’t want to have the underlying religious disagreement waved in their faces.

As a member of a Jewish minority, and as a member of an Orthodox minority within even that Jewish population, I have disagreed with basic religious beliefs held by every political candidate for whom I have voted in the past eighteen years. My own sensibilities have survived that conflict - but I do appreciate the candidates who don’t emphasize those differences.

A second issue is that these interviews flew in the face of our American freedom of religion. As a nation, we have valued that freedom since the colonial period. As a Jew, I particularly appreciate the fact that my right of worship is honored in our great country. No American should ever be made to justify, or even explain, his own religious ideals - but that was exactly what happened on Sunday night.

There was an awkward resemblance between Sunday’s public dialogue and the savage religious persecutions of the past millenium. Placing a political leader - or anyone - on a stage to answer questions like, “Do you believe God punishes nations in realtime,” and “Do you believe God created the world in six days,” white leather chairs and glasses of water notwithstanding, calls forth images of the Catholic Inquisition in the late Middle Ages and the Mutazilite Muslim Inquisition of the 9th century.

And to this I would add a third piece of the problem: The role of public display in religion, altogether.

Certainly, the Bible itself is mixed regarding public declamation of religious belief. At no time in the Pentateuch are the Israelites instructed to spread their Sinaitic tradition to other nations. On the other hand, Canaanites who opt to adopt Judaism are accepted into that early Jewish nation.

As a viewer whose tradition is ambiguous regarding evangelism, and whose personal beliefs include the words of the prophet Micah (6:8), “and walk modestly with thy God,” I mistrust a forum in which a politician is called upon to publicly answer the question, “When did you experience the Spirit?”

I attended the Forum out of curiosity, and my curiosity was duly satisfied. More, the Compassion Forum did highlight elements in both candidates’ beliefs with which I could agree, and which likely resonated with people of many faiths. Senator Obama spoke about the way his bible-based faith had inspired his work with impoverished people in the south side of Chicago. Senator Clinton voiced a very Jewish belief when she said that her response to suffering is not to ask why God permits it, but rather to ask how she can help. And yet, for all three of the reasons outlined above - spotlighting religious differences, the resemblance to an Inquisition and the public display of personal beliefs - I was less than comfortable with The Compassion Forum.

May our political representatives always remain strong in their beliefs, but - so far as I am concerned - may they keep those beliefs to themselves.

A Proba (Rabbinic Job Interview) for Senator Clinton and Senator Obama at The Compassion Forum

Yes, to those who spotted me, I was at the Compassion Forum in Messiah College last night, courtesy of the Orthodox Union. They found me a very good seat, too! (You can see me in the lower left corner at 00:20, here.)

Lots of interesting names in the audience, and I’m pretty sure I spotted Congressman Steven Rothman, from last week's event at Muhlenberg College, in the crowd. (I have to admit I wouldn’t have recognized most of the big figures by face, but I saw their names on their seats, so that helped.) I sat next to one of former President Clinton’s advisors, and he very patiently answered my million questions about the way these events work.

A lot to process from the experience, and I’m somewhat tired from the drive home, but here are some thoughts:

The Messiah College folks were, for the most part, sensitive to the needs of non-Christians in the crowd. They warmed up the audience with gospel singers whose choices were fairly non-denominational (except for one point in the second song; not sure if that was an ad-lib or part of the script). Oh, and there was one reverend who, concluding his very pareve introductory remarks, veered into the ultimate goal being joy in the father, son, etc.

One particular thought: Religion has really become safe ground in the past several years, I suspect in large part due to President Bush’s approach of letting it all hang out on his own faith. I was taken aback by the pointed religious questions: “Do you believe Gd punishes nations, in real time?” “Why does Gd permit suffering?” “What were specific moments when you experienced the spirit?” This aside from the more ‘normal’ questions, like, “Do you believe life begins at conception?” (I'm not sure whether I'm disturbed or encouraged by the acceptability of these questions in political discourse.)

The whole evening actually reminded me quite a bit of a proba, a rabbinic job interview, at which anyone could ask you anything, and you’re sitting or standing there, expected to come up with a response which is both true to your principles and satisfying to your many audiences.

The candidates themselves were very impressive in handling these questions. (That’s not really a surprise; you don’t get to this point unless you are very, very intelligent.) While they must be able to guess many of the questions in advance, they still, very visibly, think well on their feet.

I had two favorite answers of the night:
1) When Senator Clinton was asked her favorite biblical story, she answered by talking about Esther and Purim. I asked my neighbor whether he thought that was a planned, politically balanced response. He didn’t think so. I’m not so sure, but I must say that she explained it well, talking about women’s opportunities to take heroic action on a public level. She also mentioned receiving divrei torah on the parshah; I’ll have to add her to my email list…

2) When Senator Obama was challenged to pledge to reduce the national poverty rate in half within ten years, he replied in the affirmative, accepting that responsibility.
Frankly, the challenge itself was foolish; a president can commit to many things, but there is so much beyond his control on this issue that it's absurd. We're not talking landing a man on the moon, we're talking controlling a million conflicting issues that don't come under your jurisdiction.
And the answer he gave was actually much less than a pledge, hedged with comments about humility and needing cooperation from so many others
However, the fact that he made the pledge at all was bold. It would have been legitimate for him to have stopped short of the pledge itself, but he did not – he confirmed that he would do this, and he did mention some concrete ideals toward that goal. I would love to see that pledge fulfilled; what can I tell you, it satisfies the socialist in me. אפס כי לא יהיה בך אביון, right?

Two other quick notes:
A) The Middle East, interestingly, was off the list of topics. I'm relieved, frankly, but I would have liked to have heard them talk about the mix of religious beliefs and the Middle East.

B) Hillary came around shaking hands, and when my hand wasn't out she handled it very smoothly. She knows how this works, of course. A Muslim fellow behind me was a bit surprised, though, and asked me about it afterward.

More coming as I digest the experience… and probably a Yizkor derashah as well...

My Jewish Political Skepticism: A long tradition continues

[This week's Haveil Havalim is up here; and I have an unexpected link from the Jewish Cooking Carnival to boot!]

Jews are heir to a long national history of political skepticism. Whether slaves in Egypt told by Moshe that God would take them out of bondage, or generations of Jews promised by prophets that if only they would follow the Torah they would be safe from their enemies, or European Jewish communities living under the government of innumerable His Royal Highnesses, the Jewish nation has always doubted those who promised anything at all. King David wrote in Tehillim, “Put not your trust in princes,” and our ancestors took that as less pragmatic warning and more sacrosanct commandment.

This trait (which I admit has frustated rabbinic leadership as long as there has been rabbinic leadership) has served our minority population well through centuries and millenia of wandering from land to land. Jewish communities have taken government promises with more than one grain of salt, have hedged bets in political battles, and have kept their bags perpetually packed, literally as well as figuratively, and have saved many lives in the process.

But the downside to this lack of trust is that when we find an ally, someone deserving of our support, we hold back for fear of choosing wrong.

As a result of this Prufrockian fear of misplacing trust, I have been unable to connect with any of this year’s panoply of candidates. Magnetic orators as well as straight-talking cowboys, experienced politicos and relative newcomers, all of them talk a good game to one extent or another, and all have high points and lows, and the bottom line remains this genetic mistrust.

Case in point: This past Monday evening I attended a program at local Muhlenberg College, with Congressman Steven Rothman (D-NJ). Congressman Rothman, sent by the Obama campaign, was to speak about Senator Barack Obama’s positions on Israel and the Middle East.

The congressman said everything I could have wanted to hear; on more than one occasion his words sounded like they had come out of my own pro-Israel pen. The congressman spoke of important America-Israel partnerships, the history of the America-Israel relationship, the need for considering compensation for Jewish refugees forced out of Arab lands, and the affirmation of Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. The congressman educated the audience in the history of the British Mandate and the Balfour Declaration as well as the relatively recent vintage of Palestine. He expressed sympathy for Palestinian Arabs but demanded an end to violence, acceptance of the Jewish Israel and acceptance of previous peace agreements as a pre-requisite for dialogue with any Palestinian Arab leadership. In all of these areas, the congressman affirmed at the end that he spoke not only for himself, but also for Senator Obama.

Addressing the question I posted here last week, the congressman said that Senator Obama would not force Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table, and would not dictate the terms of a peace agreement. (I’m not so sure that his comments on this point were coincidental; my post on the topic was read for quite some time by someone at house.gov, mere minutes after I put it on-line last week…)

[Update: At 9:54 AM today, the day after I posted this message, I had another visit from that same house.gov site, now for this article. Presumably to check the coverage. I trust you found my report on the event accurate?]

I should add that Eric Lynn, billed as Senator Obama's Middle East Policy Adviser, also spoke strongly in favor of support for Israel as a Jewish state, in a pre-program session.

Really, Senator Obama's views sounded just like mine. I couldn't have been happier. And yet, at the end, I remained unable to really trust - just like I can’t trust Senator Clinton when she says pretty much the same things. Ditto for Senator McCain.

Perhaps I would have been more comfortable if I had heard something with which I disagreed; hearing my own party line triggers my skepticism antennae like little else. I wonder what Senator Obama’s surrogates say when they address the Muslim community. (As soon as I arrived home I looked on-line for such an event, but have not been able to find one listed.)

Perhaps it's because I was hearing a surrogate, instead of the Senator himself. I've met President G. W. Bush, and I can tell you that regardless of all stances and snafus, he has real magnetism in person. Successful politicians just have it. Congressman Rothman probably has it when speaking for himself. But when speaking as a surrogate for someone else, well, it's just harder to have the same pull.

What does it all mean in the end, what's the bottom line? I’ll admit that I am less concerned than I was a few hours ago regarding Senator Obama’s leanings. But, ultimately, the search for an end to my skepticism continues…

How important is Israel/Middle East Peace to Senators Obama and Clinton?

If I had to choose between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and if my deciding issue were Israel, I’m not sure I’d go with with Hillary. I am a card-carrying member of the pro-Israel “right wing,” and my gut says that Hillary would be a bigger threat than Barack to the safety of Israel.

(Note: I am not endorsing anyone in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. Personally, I am a registered Independent - and rabbi of a religious institution.)

True, Barack Obama has a stable of staunchly left wing foreign policy advisers. Ex-President Carter has endorsed him, former Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer is said to be a key adviser, and the further list of left wing associates who claim to be his advisers is quite long. (This is separate from the Reverend Jeremiah Wright issue, about which enough has already been said.)

In fact, I do think that Senator Obama supports Israel’s left wing. Based on his own public comments (which have been admirably frank; I wish others were so forthright!), it is clear to me that he believes Israel’s best interests include making lopsided “peace deals” which rely far too much on trusting the Arab world to mutate into honorable societies who keep their words and honor their agreements.

Further, I do think that Senator Clinton is less likely than Senator Obama to trust the Arab world, and less likely to strengthen terrorist sponsors in the course of “diplomacy.”

However: The issue of where these candidates stand on the Middle East is not nearly as important as where the Middle East stands with them.

For Senator Obama, based on his brief national-legislative history and this campaign, the Middle East is an issue that he must face in the course of politics, but that he doesn’t consider “front and center” in his plans. As President he would be forced to deal with terror, and with issues that affect American soldiers overseas and the American economy at home, but domestic matters like poverty and healthcare and taxes, as well as issues like environmental concerns and energy policy, seem to be at the top of his agenda. He won’t have the time, or political will, for the sacrifices needed to muscle the obstinate Middle East into his vision of peace.

On the other hand, Senator Clinton has made foreign policy a central part of her sales pitch to America. Although she has plenty of plans for domestic policy, she considers herself accomplished in the global arena, and it seems far more likely to me that she would want to achieve a landmark (dare I say legacy?) in the Middle East, than that Senator Obama would want to do the same.

I plan to attend a Monday night program at a local college, featuring Steve Rothman, a New Jersey Congressman, speaking on Senator Obama’s Middle East policy. The campaign is involved with the event, so I expect Congressman Rothman will be able to speak authoritatively.

I won’t need to ask Congressman Rothman what the Senator thinks Israel ought to do; the Senator has made that pretty clear himself. Instead, I’ll want to know: How pressing will Middle East peace be to the Senator from Illinois?

Column: Barack Obama, Jeremiah Wright and Spiritual Politicans

I submitted the following column to the Allentown Morning Call on Friday Feb. 29, and it ran today. (They changed the headline in the version they printed here, and that does slant the column's meaning, but they seem to have left the actual text intact.)


The Political Candidate and his Spiritual Advisor
At the February 26th Democratic debate between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Mr. Obama was questioned regarding the political views of his pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr. As Tom Raum described it in an Associated Press analysis,[1] the moment was awkward.

This type of questioning is certainly not new to American politics; it is reminiscent of religious challenges put to recent presidential candidates like Orthodox Jew Joseph Lieberman (regarding Israel) and Roman Catholic John Kerry (regarding abortion). There is a long historical pedigree behind these questions, too - think of John F. Kennedy in 1960 and Al Smith in 1928. Nonetheless, the approach remains troubling: In a country so solidly committed to separating Church and State, why is a candidate’s religious guide entertained as a factor?

I suspect the electorate is skeptical because of the way Americans view spirituality. Today’s churchgoers tend to view their lives as an integrated whole, merging spiritual life with day-to-day existence - the two arms of the Cross, as Reverend Wright himself put it in a recent interview[2] - and so it is hard to imagine any citizen or candidate separating the two.

The mix of religion and practical life affects every citizen, beyond the realm of the ballot box; witness the religion-oriented marketing of today’s major issues. Controversies on issues as varied as abortion, the welfare state, environmentalism, healthcare, war, right to die and gender discrimination are argued not only for secular ideals but also for the religious doctrines on each side.

Religion plays the same role at the executive level of government, and has done so for millenia. Students of the history of Christian monarchs recognize that Church-affiliated monarchs have long been mightily influenced by their spiritual advisors. Constantine, Justinian, Ferdinand and Isabella and many other European kings acted in the perceived interests of their Church. There have been rebels, too, like King James I of Aragon - who defied the Church in an attempt to defend Spanish Jewry from expulsion - but they have been the exception rather than the rule.

Jewish history, too, positions clergy as key counselors to political leaders. The prophet Samuel rebuked King Saul, and ultimately removed him from the throne. King David was chastised by prophets Nathan and Gad, King Solomon was guided by his mentor, scholar Shimi ben Geira. In the Gaonic era of the 7th to 10th centuries, the Jews of Northern Africa and Europe were led by a political Exilarch and a religious Gaon, who were supposed to work in tandem to guide the nation. In modern Israel, religious legislators tend to approach their spiritual advisors for political guidance.

The upshot of this analysis is that today’s Americans, heirs to a long tradition of combining spiritual and practical considerations, are unlikely to accept any candidate’s distinction between religious pastor and political master. Until a candidate builds up a track record to the contrary, religious Americans will assume that he weighs seriously the beliefs of his religious affiliation when determining policy.

Is a candidate’s merger of religion and political philosophy harmful? Not necessarily. Candidates whose spirituality affects their public policies are more likely to have a stable religious worldview than those whose spirituality is divorced from reality.

Religion which dwells entirely in the untroubled realm of theory develops as a cloistered, naïve, even shallow philosophy which can offer little to edify its adherents. An abortion philosophy which is unfamiliar with the reality of teen pregnancy and the population explosion, or an environmental philosophy which is uneducated in the hard facts of business, employment and climate change, can have little to say to a citizen of the 21st century. However, religion which plays a robust role in daily life gains a savvy which forces its followers to face hard questions and develop a sophisticated worldview.

Therefore, I’m not sure I would not want a chief executive whose religious faith was divorced from the real world; perhaps it might be better to have a candidate who has a foot in both worlds, and is forced to mediate between the two.


[1] http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/politics/sns-ap-democrats-analysis,0,781296.story
[2] http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week1028/interview.html