Rabbi Jon's Website and Blog

Which Election Are You Involved In?

I have a lot of thoughts about the upcoming elections, so I'm going to use the blog to say some of the things that aren't in the form of Divrei Torah.

We seem to be going through two different elections.  In one election, President Obama is out to destroy the American way of life.  He has sympathy for terrorists and is ashamed of our country.  He hates Israel.  Mitt Romney, in this election, hopes to be president so he can help himself and his rich friends pay almost nothing in taxes.  He would rather persecute working people, and he belongs to a suspicious religion that is some kind of cult.

The other election is about different approaches to the problems of millions of people without work, personal wealth still wiped out from the housing crash, the high costs of medical care, the relevance of religious principle to public policies, etc.  There are profound differences of principle about this, and also different practical approaches.

It would be hard enough to sort out the real election, even if the ridiculous one were not in the way.  While more of the vitriol is coming from the right, and it is better funded there, liberals are not immune.

I think it's imperative to find some antidotes.  One thing is that we should all watch both President Obama's and Governor Romney's acceptance speeches this week and next, and listen for both substance and principles.  There will be bashing -- and even more from Biden and Ryan, though we should try to watch those too.  But the two speeches will be illuminating.

Another antidote is to get to the actual policy proposals as much as possible, and spend as little time watching the cable news horserace coverage.  During the last couple days, I've been trolling for as much as I can find about Medicare, which is shaping up as one of the major differences.  Here are some things I've found:

report from the Federal Government's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services about savings achieved or achievable for seniors and the government by the Affordable Care Act -- I take this as something like an Obama campaign document

Versions of the "Ryan Plan" for Medicare:

• Ryan-Wyden Plan outlined by Rep. Ryan and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) last year
• Ryan-Rivlin Plan (Alice Rivlin is a former Democratic budget official)

Gov. Romney's campaign page about Medicare

testimony from Kavita Patel of the Brookings Institution (liberal think tank) before a House subcommittee this summer on using innovation to reduce Medicare payments to doctors

testimony from Scott Gottlieb of the American Enterprise Institute (conservative think thank) before a House subcommittee this summer critiquing the Independent Payment Advisory Board for Medicare

There is a lot of tachlis (practical, bottom-line material) in these, and also some good articulations of principle about responsibility, community, and liberty.  You'll be surprised perhaps, because a lot of this does not correspond to the caricatures in the silly election.

I'm looking these days for more material on the ethics of medical care, for senior citizens and for all of us, from Jewish sources and others such as the Catholic bishops of the U.S.

Isn't that much better?

Election 2012 -- Quick Roundup of My Links

Here are a few of my Divrei Torah that relate to political philosophy and the upcoming election.  I'll be speaking more about this tomorrow at Shabbat morning services.

• 2009 Dvar Torah on this week's parasha, Shoftim -- my letter to President Obama about health care reform
• last week's on-line Dvar Torah on Parashat Re'eh -- some Torah thoughts on economics and society
• Dvar Torah on Parashat Vayera before the 2010 Congressional elections
  

Parashat Re'eh: Getting Ready for the Election

This week I write with a particular awareness of the time of year.  It's Rosh Chodesh Elul, the start of the month leading into Rosh Hashanah.  It's our annual time of introspection and self-analysis.  It's also a week since the presidential election choice has been clarified, with the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as Gov. Mitt Romney's running mate.  In any election year, the choice of our leaders is a personal commitment we each make, a choice about the society we would like to see in the year ahead.  It's time to think about the election philosophically and spiritually.

Parashat Re'eh is the first of a set of three Torah readings that I consider to be political, at least in part.  Throughout the parashiyot (weekly readings) of Re'eh, Shoftim, and Ki Tetze, there are laws and lenses for society.  These do not translate easily or directly into modern America.  Rather, they frame certain issues and offer certain perspectives that help us stand back from our own assumptions about politics and government.

I believe that the first step in being a voting citizen is to have a political philosophy.  That means reflecting and clarifying our own assumptions and principles about what makes a good society and what makes society function well.

The first question a political philosophy in contemporary America asks is:  Is there such a thing as a good society?  If so, we think about how to achieve it.  Each person or facet of society has some responsibility for it that we have to work out.  If there is no such thing as a good society, then the ideal is a society that allows everyone to choose their own version of an ideal life.

The answer to the question about the good society gives you a defintion of individual liberty.  If there is no good society, then individual liberty should be expansive.  if there is such a thing as a good society, then individual liberty has a purpose and some boundaries.

The second issue is about the role of different institutions in our society.  It's common in America to talk about the individual versus the government, or business versus the government.  I think that these are the major forces in society

• the individual citizen
• businesses on a small or medium scale
• businesses that are part of everything we do -- finance, communications, medical care
• governments
• small scale organizations that are not about money -- civic groups, religious groups, etc.
  

A political philosophy asks:  In what ways are any of these contributing to, or working against, the good society or the liberty of the individual?  What should we do to boost the contributions or rein in the excesses?

I think this is a better set of questions than "more government or less government."  Your answers to these lead you to specific thoughts about specific issues.

So where is the Torah?  As I wrote in the bulletin at the beginning of summer, the Torah doesn't have a single answer on the issues.  But there are more perspectives than you might think.  True, the Torah doesn't speak about "big banks" -- but in Parashat Re'eh, for instance, the Torah speaks a good deal about lending and borrowing.  (And the Talmud is very knowledgeable about credit and even about financial innovations such as futures.)

Here are just a few principles in this week's parasha.

*Economic life and community life are interwoven.  The economy isn't a separate sphere.  Prosperity and the celebration of the holy days are discussed together.  Prosperity is funneled into bonds between the well-off and those without land to sustain them.  Prosperity even links Israelites and non-Israelites.

*Lending and giving.  The Torah talks about tithing, a giving of one-tenth of one's harvest each year.  In years 1, 2, 4, and 5 of every seven-year cycle, that tithe is used as part of a pilgrimmage to Jerusalem, to celebrate with the entire nation.  In years 3 and 6, the tithe stays in town.  It is shared with everyone who has no land to sustain them, whether Israelite or not.

According to the Mishnah, tithing is not really an "offering."  A person who does not tithe is "stealing from the poor."  (There are other tithes and required offerings than the one mentioned in this week's reading.)  Jewish scholars discuss whether the Torah's system is essentially a flat tax or not.

The Torah also talks about lending as a way of meeting the needs of a poor person in a sustainable way.  I believe the Torah is not only talking in economic terms.  Lending creates a certain kind of relationship -- a partnership over the long term, a horizon where someone can look forward to dignity down the road if not immediately.  Rabbi Moses Maimonides taught that lending to a poor person, or investing in their work, is the highest form of tzedakah.

*There is both hope and despair about ending poverty.  Helping those in need is not only about the outcome.  In this week's reading, the Torah says two things.  "There shall be no needy among you — since the Lord your God will bless you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you" (Deuteronomy 15:4).  And, famously, in the same chapter:  "For there will never cease to be needy ones in your land, which is why I command you: open your hand" (Deuteronomy 15:11).

Eradicating poverty is a goal, and it's reasonable to measure how well we do it.  At the same time, the Torah makes clear that the act and intention to fight poverty is important even when it doesn't meet that goal.

When I study these, I see a more complicated picture than "liberal" or "conservative."  I see questions about the nature of society and the role of money that the Torah would ask both liberals and conservatives.  To liberals the Torah might say, for instance:  Do the programs you advocate create relationships of mutuality and dignity?  To conservatives the Torah might say:  What proportion of one's wealth comes with an obligation to society?  The point isn't to play ping-pong, but to study and reflect.  To clarify one's political philosophy, then to critique and improve it.  And only then, to vote.  And then after that, to keep acting in society.

Preparing for Next Week's NH Primary -- Israel Issues

Next week we will be voting in New Hampshire for the presidential nominees.  One of the important issues for Jews to weigh is how American policy will affect Israel.  Here are statements taken from the official campaign websites of the remaining Republican candidates.  President Obama does not have anything posted on his campaign website, but he does have a record.  I will look for a couple of representative essays supporting and critiquing his record on Israel.

In the meantime, here are some Republican excerpts, verbatim from their websites.  Bear in mind that U.S.-Israel relations are also part of some wider contexts -- energy policy, counterterrorism, the U.S. and the Arab Spring.  You can view excerpts of speeches the candidates gave at a recent Republican Jewish Coalition forum here.

 

Newt Gingrich (no mention of Israel on official website)

Jon Huntsman (no mention of Israel on official website)

Ron Paul (only mention:) ...stopping foreign aid...

Rick Perry

As Governor Perry said during tonight’s debate, “Obviously, Israel is a special ally, and my bet is that we would be funding them at some substantial level. But it makes sense for everyone to come in at zero and make your case.”

Governor Perry is a friend to Israel and understands the challenges faced by the country.  He has visited the country several times and has personal relationships with Israeli leaders.  While in Israel in 2009, he was also awarded the Defender of Jerusalem Award.

Governor Perry recognizes Israel as a unique and vital political and economic partner for the United States in the Middle East.  Our mutual commitment to democracy and free market principles makes us allies in the defense of western civilization.

Governor Perry understands Israel’s security challenges, particularly the threat of Iran, and the need to work together to counter this threat.  Especially after the most recent IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear activity we must not let any daylight show between our two nations.

Governor Perry understands the need to continue to work toward a solution to the Palestinian problem, but does not believe weakening Israel is the road to peace.  A strong Israel is in the best interests of the United States and the region.

Governor Perry believes that the actions by the Palestinians to circumvent the appropriate diplomatic process and go directly to the United Nations to seek a unilateral declaration of statehood is unacceptable and a direct threat to our friend and ally, Israel.

Under Rick Perry’s presidency, any consideration of Palestinian statehood will depend upon a complete recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, the total rejection of terrorism and Palestinian leaders sitting down directly with Israel to negotiate a settlement. The aid and support of the United States will be based on the Palestinians meeting these requirements.

Mitt Romney -- THE MIDDLE EAST AND THE ARAB SPRING: ISRAEL

Israel is the United States’ closest ally in the Middle East and a beacon of democracy and freedom in the region. The tumult in the Middle East has heightened Israel’s security problems.

Indeed, this is an especially dangerous moment for the Jewish state. It has deteriorating relationships with Turkey and Egypt. It faces longstanding dangers from Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, a violent and highly unstable Syria, and a nuclear-aspiring Iran whose leadership is openly calling for Israel’s annihilation.

To ensure Israel’s security, Mitt Romney will work closely with Israel to maintain its strategic military edge. The United States will work intensively with Turkey and Egypt to shore up the now fraying relationships with Israel that have underpinned peace in the Middle East for decades. The United States must forcefully resist the emergence of anti-Israel policies in Turkey and Egypt, and work to make clear that their interests are not served by isolating Israel.

With regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Romney’s policy will differ sharply from President Obama’s. President Obama and his administration have badly misunderstood the dynamics of the region. Instead of fostering stability and security, they have diminished U.S. authority and painted both Israel and ourselves into a corner. President Obama for too long has been in the grip of several illusions. One is that the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is the central problem in the region. This has been disproved repeatedly by events, most recently and most dramatically by the eruption of the Arab Spring. But it nonetheless led the administration to believe that distancing the United States from Israel was a smart move that would earn us credits in the Arab world and somehow bring peace closer. The record proves otherwise. The key to negotiating a lasting peace is an Israel that knows it will be secure. 

The administration’s errors extend in other directions as well. President Obama has repeatedly and unilaterally created new preconditions for restarting peace talks. The result has been to encourage Palestinians simply to hold out and wait for Washington to deliver more Israeli concessions on a silver platter. Why, after all, should the Palestinians even negotiate with Israel if the White House is pressuring Israel without extracting any price from the Palestinians in return?

As president, Romney will reject any measure that would frustrate direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. He will make clear to the Palestinians that the unilateral attempt to decide issues that are designated for final negotiations by the Oslo Accords is unacceptable. The United States will reduce assistance to the Palestinians if they continue to pursue United Nations recognition or form a unity government that includes Hamas, a terrorist group dedicated to Israel’s

destruction. The United States needs a president who will not be a fair-weather friend of Israel. The United States must work as a country to resist the worldwide campaign to delegitimize Israel. We must fight against that campaign in every forum and label it the anti-Semitic poison that it is. Israel’s existence as a Jewish state is not up for debate.

Rick Santorum

[W]e must cease our verbal, moral, and diplomatic equivalence as between good and evil. Syria does not deserve an ambassador; its protesters deserve support; Israeli housing starts should not be put on the same moral plane as Hamas terror attacks; and China should be challenged on religious liberty rather than be given a veto on the human-rights activists we wish support.

...we must stand by Israel, especially at a time when it appears increasingly to be standing alone. The recent dislocation of the old order in the Middle East will usher in a new one, and anti-Israeli elements are working overtime to take advantage of the opportunity.

The Superhero Primary

A great thanks and yasher koach to Darren Garnick, reporter and political junkie, for sending me this piece to link to!  Darren's article for theatlantic.com is called "Republicans in Tights:  Behind the Scenes of the 'Superhero Primary'". His son Ari, age 9, asked the Republican candidates for president about their favorite superheroes. 

 

Only in New Hampshire

Parashat Toldot: How Different is Different? Election 2010 Through the Lens of Jacob and Esau

Parashat Toldot begins with the pregnancy of Rivka.  It is a difficult and uncomfortable pregnancy -- "the children were running around inside her".  She and Yitzchak approach God, who informs them:  "Two peoples are in your belly, and two nations will separate from your insides.  One nation over the other shall be stronger..." (Genesis 25:22-23).

The two boys emerge as twins, the second one out holding the heel of the first.  Yet immediately the boys seem different, and they become more so as they grow.  The midrash uses this story to explore every facet of the question of "similar but different" or "separate but connected."  In the rabbinic period, Yaakov and Esav were understood as Israel and Rome.  More poignantly, in the Byzantine period they were Judaism and Christianity.  Each midrash has its own reading on the question:  How similar are we (Jews) and the other?  How different?  What means more?

If you look at a map of the United States this week, color coded by the party of its new Congressman, you see a picture vastly red with pockets of blue.  If you total all the votes cast in elections for the House of Representatives, you find what looks like about 55 percent for the Republicans and 45 percent for the Democrats.  Which is the truer description of similarity and difference among Americans?

I read today a document prepared by a group of Muslim scholars reaching out to the leaders of all the world's major Christian churches.  The document spelled out in detail the similarities in the teachings in Christianity and Islam about love of God and love of other human beings.  The same document acknowledged the vast amount of lethal weapons in the hands of Christian-led and Muslim-led governments.  Which is the truer description of similarity and difference?

It takes very little to activate differences.  There is a famous experiment in social psychology called "The Robbers Cave", conducted by Professor Muzafer Sherif.  In the study, a group of white middle-class boys, all the same age and from similar backgrounds, were randomly split into two groups and each group was bused to its own camp.  Each group bonded, each group gave itself a name -- the Eagles and the Rattlers -- and the boys were initially unaware of the other group.

In the second phase, the groups were brought together under various competitive scenarios.  Very quickly, physical violence broke out between the groups.  It escalated beyond what the research team had predicted.  In the end, Professor Sherif had to generate problems and tasks that threatened both groups or required both groups' participation in order to solve a dramatic problem -- to pull off a rescue, or deal with a water shortage facing both.

The Robbers' Cave study showed that even the smallest differences can become magnified quickly and easily.  Professor Sherif would say:  even if Yaakov had been as hairy as Esav,  if both had been hunters, there would have been conflict if only one could inherit the blessing from their father.  Yet if there had been a common threat to unite them, an overarching problem to solve, even the studious Yaakov and the brutish Esav could have come together.

This week, Democrats and Republicans face a choice.  Are we so dramatically different, that we have to view the other as a threat to our society?  Or can we recognize a common origin in the idea of liberty, even if one child says "equal liberty" and the other says "live free or die"?  Can we recognize in the crisis of joblessness something even more important than the difference?

This question goes not just to Obama and Boehner, but to each of us who is worked up about the election, whether our candidate won or lost.  It's no secret how much people have invested in the differences, how much of our identities are tied up in our philosophies.  Nothing wrong with that.  Yet for the good of all of us, we need to be not just Esav, but Yaakov's twin brother.  Not just Yaakov, but Esav's twin brother.

Parashat Vayera: A Spiritual Lens for Election 2010

Parashat Vayera opens with two scenes in chapter 18 of Bereshit.  First, Avraham and Sarah open their homes to three travelers whom Avraham notices in the distance.  Immediately after, Avraham and God engage in a discussion about the fate of the evil city of Sodom and the other cities around it, and whether the overall injustice of those communities justifies destroying all the people who live in them.

I have been looking for a way to frame a spiritual perspective on the upcoming elections.  Parashat Vayera, and the figure of Avraham, hold an important key for us.  Disclaimer:  No candidate or party endorsements here.  I'm instead thinking about this:  How do we orient ourselves to the act of making a choice when we go to vote.

There is no spiritual formula that can tell you whom to vote for.  What I'm calling a spiritual approach to voting is instead a way of preparing, so that the vote each of us casts is grounded in something deeper than self-interest, cynicism, or even ideology.

If you are eligible, you must vote.  Out of gratitude, after centuries upon centuries when Jews (and most human beings) lived under tyranny.  To live out fully the meaning of freedom.  As I posted the day of the primary, I say a bracha (blessing) in the booth:  Baruch...she-asani ben (bat) chorin.  Blessed is God, who has made me a free person.

What does Avraham teach us that we can apply to the election?  The two scenes represent two types of connection to other people.

First connection:  up close.  Avraham pays attention to three figures moving on the horizon, and he goes to them.  They are strangers, and they are brought into the home.

So the first spiritual discipline before deciding who to vote for is to bring individuals up close, into your mind.  Consider all the people who are affected by your decision -- and I mean consider them, bring each into the mind's eye.  Assess who will be affected and how by the attitudes and policies a particular candidate has articulated.  Businesspeople, students, sick people, parents, those who work more than one job, those without a job or a good job, senior citizens, people with disabilities, those who are losing a home, and more.

In the desert, Avraham's decision to welcome the distant hikers was not simply an act of warmth.  It was a decision about life and death.  To leave the travelers alone and far off would have meant exposing them to thirst, or to bandits.  Tax rates, deficit levels, and budgets are not numbers, but decisions that translate into life or death, health or illness, suffering or sufficiency.

Second connection:  a view from on high.  When Avraham and God talk about Sodom and Gomorrah, Avraham is on a hill overlooking the plain where the five cities are located.  They talk about individuals, but they are not looking at individuals.  It is the character of the communities that sets the stage for their conversation.  So the second spiritual discipline is to think about the kind of community that would flow from your choice, if everyone were to vote as you do.

There is one view that a city, state, or country is made up of individuals.  We deal with each other for our own needs, and make the rules we need for basic fairness and safety.  This is the modern view, from thinkers like John Locke onward.  In the midrash, though, this attitude is associated with the city of Sodom.  In Sodom, according to one view, each person lived in his own home and viewed his own property as an absolute.

Spiritually, I view any community living in an area as a brit, a covenantal community.  Our ties include our economic ties and our safety, to be sure.  But we share in each other beyond the favors we trade.  We share the water, air, and energy that only briefly pass through our privately-owned pipes, lungs, and wires.  We share ideas and identity.  We share the possibility of banding together to solve problems that affect us all.  We share the need to believe that we are living in a world of justice.  We need the flourishing of as many people as possible, or else our own flourishings will seem incomplete and perhaps selfish.

So the second spiritual discipline before you vote is to stand on the hilltop and consider the kind of society that could flow from the election.  Does a candidate see us as one group, facing common problems -- or does she or he say things that pit one group against another?  Does he or she measure our individual economic wellbeing only, or also count our solidarity for something?

It's hard to answer these questions.  No single person is enough of an economist or sociologist to arrive at a certain answer.  The issues and problems before us are complex, and we are most of us laypeople when it comes to public policy.  Still, the vote is a decision with vast consequences, for individuals and for society.  Any decision that big requires a spiritual preparation.

You can go through the thought process I'm outlining and vote Democrat or Republican.  You may ask yourselves these questions, and end up with the same vote you originally thought, or the same party or ideology that you supported the last time.   Or, you might reach a new conclusion this time.

Either way, it makes a difference if you vote a certain way out of habit or frustration, of if you vote out of spiritual concern for yourself, others, and society as a whole.  Our votes together will be much better and lead to much better citizenship if we can follow Avraham, to the horizon and the hilltop.  To see everyone who is affected by our vote up close, and to consider as well the character of our society as a whole.

Engaging With the Election -- Take 1

Kudos to the Southern New Hampshire Jewish Mens' Club for this morning's forum with candidates for New Hampshire's open Senate seat, 2nd District Congressional seat, and governorship.  Great turnout, great questions, nicely run all around.  It's a tribute to the Jewish community to be able to host such an event.

It was good to see the candidates up close, to hear their voices and read their body language.

I'm going to start having something to say about the election in the coming days -- not who to vote for, but how to approach an election "spiritually."  I have two first reactions to what I heard -- and I only got to hear Kelly Ayotte, Paul Hodes, and Charlie Bass, so that's a caveat.  First, it was a lot of canned speeches in response to thoughtful questions, and I was disappointed about that.  Nuanced questions from insightful citizens deserve better -- this goes for D's and R's alike.

Second, there seems to be such a consensus at least in New Hampshire about the importance of renewable energy for jobs and the economic future.  It's a shame and a shonda that this Congress couldn't get a bill to the president.

More to come about how Jews and Torah might frame the issues and approach the vote, beyond "liberal" and "conservative."

Who Has Made Me Free

Baruch Atah Adonai Elohaynu Melech Haolam, She-asani ben chorin.

Praised are You, Adonai our God, woven through all time and space
Who has made me a free person.

--said each morning, and each time I enter the voting booth

Vote today!!!

Click for Nashua Telegraph guide to candidates