When it
comes to government, almost all liberal democracies separate church and
state. Virtually none of us would argue
against that. And yet, when thinking of
how we want our government to conduct business, we almost all wish that the
government would reflect the values we cherish most. Some of those values are undoubtedly rooted
in Jewish tradition. And that being the
case, we may just prefer governments or vote for candidates that most closely align
with our own sense of justice, our own sense of right and wrong. As long as those values are not identified as
Jewish per se, our conscience is clear in having not intermingled religion and
politics.
And can
it be any other way? How much dissonance
can there possibly be between one’s religious life and one’s political life
before we go crazy or before someone charges us with hypocrisy? One aspect of Jewish life I find most reassuring
is that the values espoused have been put to the test over centuries. The result is a set of values so solid, they
may serve as flaring beacons in the darkest of political nights.
We
are taught, for example, to not hate Egyptians (Deuteronomy 23:8). Really?
Why not? The Egyptians enslaved
us, beat us, and sought to kill our children.
When we eventually left Egypt, the Egyptians marshalled the troops to
recapture us. We have every reason to
hate the Egyptians. Nonetheless, the
Torah forbids it, and by extension, forces us to think of the role hatred plays
in our lives. When we hate our
oppressor, do we become like our oppressor?
How much personal energy do we wish to expend on hatred? Couldn’t we use our energy in a more positive
way? Will our hatred serve as a
stumbling block to a future rapprochement with our former enemy?
Like
so many Americans, we cannot turn a blind eye to illegal immigration or to the
flood of refugees running from the atrocities of ISIS operatives. Still, is the answer to these problems
hatred—framing illegals and immigrants as rapists, criminals, or terrorists? That message apparently resonates with many
Americans because hatred, like a drug, affords a temporary high, a burst of
feel good self-righteousness. And like a
drug, a steady diet of hatred leads one down a road of increasingly poor
judgments, finding fault and criticism with everyone and anyone who doesn’t
sport the hater’s point of view. Working
with the Mexican government to create local opportunities for jobs and
advancement could go a long way to stemming the tide of illegal
immigration. Creating and publicizing
the system whereby Arab refugees are vetted before entry into the country could
allay many justified fears about whom we welcome to our shores. That these recommendations may not satisfy
the American public stems in part from the absence of a figure willing to
promote them in a creative, charismatic way.
Framing “the other” as an enemy, playing on people’s fears, wielding the
politics of hate, is much easier. It may
work to get votes, but it cheapens all who employ it and is as ugly as it is
easy.
Our
Torah teaches us to not covet (Exodus 20:14).
Everyone must be familiar with this one because it is the tenth of the
Ten Commandments. Confession: every now
and then I engage in a bit of coveting.
I wonder what it might be like to eat gourmet daily, drive a
Lamborghini, and fly my Leer jet for vacation at my private villa outside of
Florence, or better yet, Jerusalem. When
I finally wake up, I realize I have more than enough food in the fridge, my
Elantra works well (except in the snow), I can hop on a plane pretty much
whenever and… do I really need a second home, even in Jerusalem?!
For
those who can afford it all, are they happier, smarter, stronger, or safer than
the rest of us? And yet, where income
distribution becomes the gemstone of one’s domestic policy, it is in essence a
legitimization of envy. That which we are forbidden to do in our
daily lives becomes the hallmark of what needs to be done in our political
lives. That strikes me as a disconnect
extraordinaire! Of course, some
proponent of redistribution will criticize any clergy for taking issue with the
politics of envy precisely because religious people “are blind,” religion being
the opium of the people. To them I would
ask: was Reverend Martin Luther King on drugs?
Was Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel a crackhead? Was Mother Theresa shooting up? If you’re going to employ a slogan, make sure
it reflects a reality and not a personal prejudice.
The
issue of Jews and money has always been a precarious subject. Jews have historically been perceived as
having too much, even when they were dirt poor.
But the fact remains that Jews have never seen money as the root of any
evil. Stinginess, selfishness—those were
problems. If anything, the community
would often look to the wealthy for support, and when given, those parnasim
(philanthropists) were generously and genuinely lauded. But it was never a matter of—“I don’t have
enough because So-and-So has too much!”
That kind of thinking could only lead to a waste of human energy as
people dream of a good others may not actually have.
Any
resemblance of these political positions to the positions of actual candidates
running for the presidency is purely coincidental. And if either are suggestive of a particular candidate,
that does not necessarily mean the candidate unworthy of our vote as other
considerations, many other considerations, come into play when ultimately
casting a vote. Nonetheless, it is a
worthwhile exercise to explore the extent to which a particular candidate
reflects one’s cherished values. And an
even better exercise to explore is whether a particular party represents one’s
cherished values. Remember, a candidate
for the presidency may promise this, that, or something else, but ultimately,
the candidate is running not for dictatorship, but for presidency. There will always be a Rottweiler Congress baring
teeth, barking and frothing at the mouth to rip the president and presidential
policies to shreds should either be in defiance of its will. To really move policy forward, Congress and
President should be of the same political persuasion. When this is not the case, government action
may come to halt as one branch vies with the other for supremacy. None of us like that, but… maybe that’s exactly what the Founding Fathers
had in mind in their attempt to limit the power of a mean spirited or imperious
president who is suddenly found occupying the seat of the highest office in the
land.
