Tuesday, June 14, 2016

THE POLITICS OF HATE AND ENVY

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.