"Why Are Jews Liberals"?
Sep. 11th, 2009 03:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rhuSo apparently Norman Podhoretz has a new book out titled "Why Are Jews Liberals?" I haven't read it, but that won't stop me from offering my 5-cent answer.
Why do most Americans oppose raising taxes on the rich? We're told it's because every American pictures themself someday being one of the richest 1%, and doesn't want to be taxed when they succeed.
I submit to you that most Jews, no matter how comfortable, successful, or assimilated, know that at any moment we could be the outsiders once again; it can all be taken away, like it was in England in 1190, in Spain in 1492, in Germany in 1933.... "Remember what it is to be a stranger, for you were a stranger in the land of Egypt."
So we're liberals not only because our religion urges certain forms of social progressivism. Just as many people oppose taxing the rich lest they themselves become rich, we oppose oppressing the downtrodden because we expect to once again, someday, be outcasts.
Why do most Americans oppose raising taxes on the rich? We're told it's because every American pictures themself someday being one of the richest 1%, and doesn't want to be taxed when they succeed.
I submit to you that most Jews, no matter how comfortable, successful, or assimilated, know that at any moment we could be the outsiders once again; it can all be taken away, like it was in England in 1190, in Spain in 1492, in Germany in 1933.... "Remember what it is to be a stranger, for you were a stranger in the land of Egypt."
So we're liberals not only because our religion urges certain forms of social progressivism. Just as many people oppose taxing the rich lest they themselves become rich, we oppose oppressing the downtrodden because we expect to once again, someday, be outcasts.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-12 12:50 am (UTC)Look! Over there!
Date: 2009-09-12 03:03 am (UTC)Example:
We're told it's because every American pictures themselves someday being one of the richest 1%, and doesn't want to be taxed when they succeed.
In my over 750 Moons of existence on this planet I've never encountered anyone who worried "now", what might happen "then", if they got rich.
Those with the money want us, the poorer, to, en mass, voice their fears, as our own. The wealthy don't want to be taxed, so they come up with these lame excuses to direct the fall-out on those who don't have the money to be taxed in the first place.
Most Politicians (not all) are Power Hungry and Greedy. I don't begrudge them what they have, especially if they earned it (and not their Grand Daddy,) and am happy if they invest it and make it grow. But when they change the laws, rules and the constitution, to keep themselves in the position of power and continue to live well off of the blood, sweat and tears of their brother and sisters, (and do so with out the slightest modicum of concern for others), then they will get no sympathy from me.
To those that have and will not share, I offer this:
If (when) hard times come and "we" have to struggle for our daily bread, there will be no room for the unproductive. It is not just a coincidence that many peoples, in the past and present, have a saying: If you do not work, you do not eat! Such individuals as Politicians and Actors will not get anything from me but Buckshot!
It is my opinion, and opinion only, that there is truth to idea that those who have plenty and yet turn their backs on hungry, small children, will have a difficulties in any additional life that my be awaiting us after we are separated from our current existence as a Carbon-Based Life Form...
But, if there is nothing beyond the grave, then let us "eat, drink and be merry", for there is no "bill" to pay, at the end. Which way do you believe? Let your conscience be your guide, (if you have one).
Bye the bye, you saw it hear first;
If you're looking for sympathy, it's in the dictionary between Symbiosis and Syrup!
W. V. Kahler :o)
Re: Look! Over there!
Date: 2009-09-12 07:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-12 09:55 pm (UTC)Then again, one of my cousins was a mate on a couple of the aliyah bet ships, so obviously my family is sympathetic to illegal immigration.
פשיטא
Date: 2009-09-13 12:55 am (UTC)The modern self-described "conservative" movement in the US wants to turn the political clock back to 1932 (if not earlier). No civil-rights laws; no Social Security; worker-safety laws considered unconstitutional; Christian prayers in the public schools; laws against not only sodomy and abortion but also birth control; etc. etc.
If they actually achieved enough political and social power to do all this, what are the odds that they wouldn't bring back the Jewish quotas in elite universities?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-13 04:20 am (UTC)Long Jewish tradition of leftism
Date: 2009-09-13 09:14 pm (UTC)I think you make a very good point. Jews have long maintained, for example, that the fight for black civil rights is very much our own fight. (And groups like the KKK, Aryan Nation, etc., agree: their fight against black people is equally against us.) But the Jewish tendency toward leftism also deserves more discussion, I think.
Long before there was ever any civil-rights awareness in this country, Jews were already helping to lead the labor fight. And, before that, we were trade unionists in Europe. Indeed, the Marxist/Communist ranks were replete with Jews (just look at the membership of the Soviet elite up through the end of World War II). So--even without the xenophobia-phobia that you describe--support for the oppressed seems as natural a part of cultural Judaism as it is for other left-inclining constituencies.
But all of this is kind of beside Podhoretz's point. He's not talking about cultural Judaism; he's talking about religious Judaism. In short, he asks, how can you be a Jew--a believer in the teachings of the Torah--and yet espouse liberal teachings, such as acceptance--even embrace--of gay rights.
To me, the question is disingenuous. There have always been various strains of Judaism that interpret Torah more and less literally. And--unless one is a Karaite--it's a pretty noncontroversial notion that Torah has always been open to interpretation and re-interpretation. Even the Orthodox community that Podhoretz claims should be the natural opponent of liberal thought isn't exactly living literal Torah. (Unless they're keeping slaves and stoning homosexuals, and I've just missed the memo.)
One area about which I'd like to see polling data, by the way, is the American Jewish divide between hawks and doves. I sure know a lot of Jewish peaceniks. (NB: I live near San Francisco, so this is kind of to be expected.) But I also know quite a few people who are (like me) socially liberal but quite conservative in foreign affairs. Certainly, hawkishness is easily supported in the Old Testament, which glorifies our seizure of others' lands, and admonishes us to slay Amalek until not even a child remains.
The lefty Californian Jews I know would largely reject these teachings. But, the crowd I grew up with in northern New Jersey, was mostly like me: socially liberal, but hawkish even up to the point of supporting the notion of Greater Israel.
anyway, neat post!
best,
dave friedman
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-15 06:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-21 09:48 am (UTC)