King Kennedy

Ruminations on Justice Anthony Kennedy, who virtually holds the fate of the US in his hands

The well-respected columnist Charles Krauthammer recently referred to Justice Anthony Kennedy as “essentially the reigning monarch of the United States.” This reference to Justice Kennedy’s presumed exalted stature derives from his long-held position as the unique swing man on the Supreme Court. The Court is – as it has been for a while – comprised of four reliably conservative justices (currently Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas) and four equally reliable liberal justices (currently Bader-Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan). In the last two decades, Kennedy has joined one or the other group to decide some of the weightiest issues confronting the nation by a slim 5-4 majority. Examples wherein Kennedy has sided with the conservatives include: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010, campaign finance) and District of Columbia v. Heller (2009, gun control). On the other hand, Kennedy joined the liberal coterie in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992, abortion).

This ongoing history wherein Kennedy provides the deciding vote on issues of paramount importance before the Court is expected to continue with the forthcoming decision on Obamacare. Following the almost unprecedented three-day long oral arguments before the Court on the merits of President Obama’s signature legislation, expert opinion was nearly unanimous that the Court’s ideological pattern will hold, and that the deciding vote will be cast by “King Anthony.” It will be virtually his decision alone as to whether the individual mandate is constitutional, and if not, then whether the entire statute is to be thrown out.

Now, while the previously cited 5-4 decisions were all vitally important, it is widely believed that the upcoming decision on Obamacare eclipses them by far. Indeed, many conservatives consider the matter existential for the nation – the failure to overturn Obamacare will spell the doom of America as a constitutional Republic based on individual liberty and limited government.

So, with the awesome power and responsibility that thereby accrues to him, is it correct – as Krauthammer implies, and numerous others have asserted more pointedly – that the fate of the United States of America rests in the hands of Justice Anthony Kennedy?

Before the answer to that question is revealed, consider whether such a situation has ever existed in the past. Has the fate of our country truly ever rested in the hands of a single individual? And if so, who and how many times?

The answer is: America’s fate has indeed been entrusted unto the hands of a single person – more than once. It would be foolhardy to argue that George Washington was not such a person. The outcome of the Revolutionary War – and consequently, whether the USA would be stillborn or not – was completely dependent on the skill, courage, wisdom and leadership of General Washington. Without him at the helm of the Continental Army, there would have been no United States of America. The same is true of Abraham Lincoln. Had he not been president and dealt successfully (albeit perhaps a little too slowly) with the southern revolt, the nation would have been cleaved in two.

The preceding cases are self-evident. For other presidents, the issue is much less clear. For example, one could argue that had it not been for FDR’s leadership, the Axis powers might have triumphed and our nation could have succumbed to totalitarian evil. (But see below.) Some consider that JFK’s combination of steely nerves and cool composure kept the nuclear genie in the bottle in 1962. Perhaps.

One can make equally, if not more compelling cases for Generals Grant, Lee and Eisenhower. If Lincoln had not elevated Grant and had the latter not been so skilled a warrior, the Civil War might have ended in a stalemate and the USA would have fractured. The same might have occurred had Lee been a more skilled and/or ruthless commander than he proved to be. And perhaps it wasn’t FDR who saved Western Civilization nearly 70 years ago, but rather Ike’s extraordinary leadership and command capabilities.

Some would argue for FDR, not because of his role in WWII, but rather because his economic programs during the Depression saved the United States. However, with the passage of time, we have learned that, on the contrary, FDR’s New Deal prolonged the Depression rather than ended it. But one can argue that certain financial giants did indeed hold the fate of the nation in their hands: Haym Solomon during the Revolutionary War; J.P. Morgan during the Panic of 1907; or Andrew Mellon during the early 1920s following the Depression of 1920-21.

Presidents, generals and mega-financiers – but no judges. John Marshall did much to determine the role that the Constitution and the Court would play in the young nation’s life. And we have had other influential jurists (e.g., Story, Holmes, Warren), but no one ever asserted that they held the fate of the nation in their hands. Is Anthony Kennedy the first judge to do so?

No liberal would subscribe to that notion. Should Kennedy decide to ditch Obamacare, liberals will be sorely disappointed. But they will see it as a temporary setback on the long road to converting America into a collectivist, Euro-style welfare state. Liberals/progressives believe in such a transformation, have worked tirelessly for it for a century, have enjoyed remarkable success and expect to complete the metamorphosis. They anticipate that Obama (if he is reelected) or some successor, together with a compliant Court, will finish the transformation. Such people account for perhaps 20-25% of the country.

An equal number, perhaps somewhat more – that is, those of the conservative persuasion – are mortified at the prospect. They see a federal government that is out of control; racking up unsustainable debt; engaging in unchecked regulatory oppression; dismantling the country’s defenses and denying the exceptional character of its nature. They see Obamacare as the tipping point, beyond which it will be impossible to reverse America’s century-long slide into Euro-socialism. They foresee an inevitable loss of American exceptionalism, individual liberty and free market capitalism. For these people, there is no doubt that America’s fate is at the mercy of King Kennedy’s whim.

But what of the rest – the independents, moderates, centrists? In fact, given the starkly different and irreconcilable visions for America espoused by the left and right, the centrists are arguably either confused, apathetic or inattentive. It appears not to occur to them that their children’s fate will be determined by what the King decides. But the King will decide soon. Should he decide in favor of the progressives, it will not take long to see whether the dire consequences predicted by conservatives come to fruition. But should he go the other way, then one can hope that it will signal the end of the progressive slide and the beginning of a return to a more traditional America. With those diametrically opposed possible outcomes, it is clear that, indeed, Anthony Kennedy holds the fate of the nation in his hands.

______
This article also appeared in The American Thinker at:
and also in The Land of the Free at:

 

Coming Apart at the Class Seams

A review of Charles Murray’s book Coming Apart, and some comments on Yuval Levin’s review of it in The Weekly Standard

Charles Murray has written several books that have had a major impact on cultural and political discussion in America. Losing Ground (1984) and The Bell Curve (1994, with Richard Hernnstein) are the two best known – although Levin believes that In Pursuit (1988) is Murray’s finest work. Murray’s thoughts have been propelled to the forefront of the nation’s attention again with his most recent book Coming Apart.

In the book, Murray documents – and I mean documents; the charts, tables and graphs are copious and convincing – his latest thesis, which is: “America is coming apart at the seams, not seams of race or ethnicity, but of class.” Murray draws a detailed and poignant portrait of two new classes that have sprouted in America – which he calls the new elite or new upper class and the new lower class. Put simply, the former consists of people with very high levels of education, vocational achievement and wealth, whereas the latter is made up of those who lack all three and instead manifest poverty (or at best bare subsistence), no more than a high school diploma (and often not that) and either no vocation or only menial and inconstant paid labor – likely on the government dole in one way or another.

Now America has never lacked for people who fit either description (except perhaps for the government dole component). But their existence in the past was accompanied by connections between them and shared values amongst them. These commonalities increasingly do not exist between the two new classes. According to Murray, this disjointedness arises in two ways. The first is geographical. The new upper class typically lives and works in enclaves which are so sheltered that the denizens barely (and in many cases, never) interact with members of the new lower class. The latter might have some feel for how the former live from the media, but the new upper classes often have absolutely no idea how the lower class lives. More devastatingly, asserts Murray, the more critical divide between the classes is reflected in each group’s manifestations of the civic virtues that were always responsible for and reflected American exceptionalism – or as Murray labels it, the American project: that is, those special qualities or behaviors displayed by her citizens that made America unique among the nations. That special code (or as it used to be called, the American creed) consisted of a set of ideals or virtues, identified by the Founders and elaborated upon by De Tocqueville, around which America organized itself, and through which it expressed its devotion to the cause of individual liberty, limited government and the pursuit of happiness. In Murray’s words:

The American project…consists of the continuing effort, begun with the founding, to demonstrate that human beings can be left free as individuals and families to live their lives as they see fit, coming together voluntarily to solve their joint problems. The polity based on that idea led to a civic culture that was seen as exceptional by the world. That culture was so widely shared among Americans that it amounted to a civil religion. To be an American was to be different from other nationalities, in ways that Americans treasured. That culture is unraveling.

Murray selects four aspects of the project (or creed), against which he measures the state of compliance with the creed by the new classes’ members: industriousness, honesty, marriage and religion. He reveals statistically the health of these components of the creed for each of the two classes. Later, he broadens these four aspects into wider areas of life – vocation, community, family and faith – against which he engages in an even more elaborate data analysis to ascertain how well each of the classes is upholding its role in the American project.

Murray’s conclusion is that the project is alive and well among the new upper class, but nearly defunct within the new lower class. Moreover, Murray claims, despite their ability, indeed obligation, to do so, the upper class makes no attempt to promote its values to the lower class. It fails to “preach what it practices.” Thus unlike any time in the past, America has become a society with disjoint classes. One class no longer subscribes to the tenets of American exceptionalism, and although the other practices them, it no longer has faith in the ideal. Murray asserts that the situation is unsustainable. If it persists, the American project will die. America will cease to be an exceptional nation and the precious heritage of human freedom that America has stood for will vanish from the Earth.

Now, while generally laudatory in his review, Levin (in the March 18, 2012 edition of the Weekly Standard) has two major beefs with Murray’s hypothesis. Murray identifies a date on which the tear in America’s class seam originated – November 22, 1963, the date of John F. Kennedy’s assassination. The vast majority of Murray’s statistical measures compare the state of America today – or at some point in the last 50 years – to what existed the day before Kennedy was killed. Moreover, Levin asserts – correctly, I believe – that Murray is presuming that the classless nature of American society, and more generally, the almost uniform acceptance by the people of the creed, existed in an unbroken fashion from the eighteenth century until the 1960s. But says Levin:

The fact is that America in the immediate postwar years was made possible by an utterly unrepeatable set of circumstances, and setting out to re-create it is not a constructive objective for public policy. What we need to do, instead, is to seek for ways to achieve broadly shared prosperity and cultural vitality today – to balance cohesion and dynamism in our time, which is a time of great tension and change.

That this is hardly the first era of tension and change in our history should leave us more hopeful than Murray suggests, and should send us looking for guidance in eras prior to the postwar golden age. Murray implies that his description of America in 1963 applied to America before this time as well – from the era of the founding until half a century ago. But surely this is not the case. In other times—in periods of social tension, economic upheaval, mass immigration, and cultural transformation – America’s founding virtues have been under immense strain. But time and again, we have found our way to national revival – cultural, moral, religious, social, political, and economic. We have experienced multiple golden ages, and they have not all looked alike.

Perhaps it is this extraordinary capacity for the renewal of our founding virtues, rather than the particular strength we possessed 50 years ago, that really makes America exceptional. If so, then Murray’s project, which should be America’s project, is in better stead than this ultimately pessimistic book suggests.

Levin’s second beef is that Murray seems to be placing the blame for, and the need to fix the current mess on the upper class. Again Levin:

In this sense, Murray’s book suffers from a flaw that bears some similarity to the one that renders the liberal case regarding inequality largely incoherent. That case seeks to blame the wealthy for the growing gap between the top and the bottom, and in the process, treats the gap itself as the core problem when, in fact, it is the stagnation and decline at the bottom that should worry us most…[The] key factor behind the collapse of poor and working class life in America has been precisely the liberal welfare state [that liberals] hold up as a solution – a welfare state originally constructed on misguided moral premises, which has badly undermined the social institutions essential to human thriving in poor communities, and which now remains as a moldering relic growing increasingly bloated, inefficient, and regressive. The left’s cynical (or else pitiful) disavowal of this fact explains a great deal of its present obsession with inequality.

Murray, of course, suffers from no such self-delusion. He plainly sees how much the welfare state has contributed to the ruin of lower-class life. And he also understands…that the key problems faced by the poor today are fundamentally cultural (and therefore also moral), not simply economic.

Knowing that poorly designed welfare state institutions contributed mightily to these cultural problems does not solve them, however, and while the reform (greatly aided by Murray’s own work) of one especially counterproductive welfare program in the 1990s may have helped to slow the bleeding, it has hardly stopped it. Murray … suggest[s] that America’s elites could help a lot by offering a moral argument for their own way of life: By preaching what they practice, and therefore helping to link the traditional American virtues to examples of lived success…

But surely, this is a highly implausible practical solution to the immense cultural ruin that Murray describes. It is hard to see how the graduates of elite universities who live in their cultural islands of privilege could really speak with any moral authority to the problems of working-class life… Rather, the cultural disaster Murray describes seems to be a failing of America’s moral (and therefore largely its religious) institutions.

I believe that Levin’s second beef is legitimate, but his first is off the mark. Yes, the country has encountered grave crises in its pre-1960s existence – even existential ones such as the Civil War. And we managed to recover each time. But when we encountered major crises in the past, the American creed was intact. We did not have large swatches of the population who no longer had faith in American exceptionalism, who doubted that the US was and is a force for good in the world, who had rejected the basic tenets of our country’s founding, such as: individual liberty trumps group fairness, free markets work better than central planning, traditional morals grounded in religious faith produce superior civic virtues; the US Constitution (as amended) is the supreme law of the land to which all citizens owe complete fidelity. Well we do now. And so one cannot be so sanguine – as Levin is – that we will blast our way out of the sand trap as we have so magnificently in the past.

In the end, despite their disagreements, Murray and Levin come to the same ultimate conclusion as to the key component of the way out. There must be a great moral awakening in the country – among both classes – which recognizes the folly of the Progressive bad trip that we have been on, and results in a rededication to the classic moral principles that guided our Founders and also our ancestors who followed them. Murray thinks that the awakening must be lead by the new upper class. Levin feels that it must arise more spontaneously throughout the entire culture. Whoever is right, I pray that the awakening comes soon.
_____
This review also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at:

 

How Did Santorum Become the Last Mole Standing?,

An examination of how, unexpectedly, Rick Santorum became the last threat to Mitt Romney’s acquisition of the Republican presidential nomination

 

In a previous post in this blog in November, 2011, the process of selecting a Republican presidential candidate to oppose Barack Obama was described as a combination of American Idol and Whack-a-Mole. The contestants compete in preliminary popularity rounds and the people vote via opinion polls. The last idol standing will be the nominee. But during the process, different candidates pop their heads out of their holes, only to be whacked back down by the media. It’s enough to make one pine for smoke-filled rooms.

The “mole” who poked his head out of his hole in November was Newt Gingrich. In fact, at the time, Newt looked to be the last non-Romney mole. But Newt was not only whacked back into his hole by the media; he was literally bludgeoned down into it by a surprisingly vicious and remarkably effective attack by Romney and his Super PAC.

According to the narrative in the article, that should have been the end of the nomination story. Previously whacked moles (Pawlenty, Cain, Bachmann, Perry) had been erased from the chase and the other moles (Paul, Santorum, Huntsman, Johnson) were deemed to be of such minor importance that they could be safely ignored. The latter assessment turned out to be accurate for Huntsman and Johnson, and in the end for Paul also – but somehow, in a development that was unforeseen, and as yet unexplained, Rick Santorum morphed into a viable mole and now represents the only meaningful challenger to Romney. How did this come about? Can Santorum really defeat Romney? And if so, what does it portend for a Santorum-Obama contest?

Most pundits did not foresee the emergence of Santorum as a major candidate for the GOP nomination. The fact that he was slaughtered in a swing state (Pennsylvania) in his last Senate run seemed enough to disqualify him from serious consideration. But on top of that there were: his whiny personality; his betrayal of the bona fide conservative Toomey in favor of the turncoat Specter; his undistinguished record in the Senate; his lack of executive experience; and his views on social issues – which, while perhaps more mainstream than portrayed by the media, were often stated in an extreme fashion that made him anathema to moderate voters. His placement at the end of the line in candidate debates seemed appropriate and it was expected that he would disappear from the scene in short order.

But he didn’t. Why? Here are five reasons:

  1. Santorum had the accidental good fortune to be hidden from – and therefore immune to – the mudslinging by his fellow candidates. While Romney was bashing Gingrich, and Perry was trashing Romney and everyone was marginalizing Paul, no one was paying any attention to poor Rick. So while he was not gaining any traction, he was also not driven from the race. Huntsman and Johnson were similarly ignored. But Johnson was never a serious candidate. And his views were already covered by the better known Paul. Huntsman might have considered himself a serious candidate, but virtually no one else did. His social views were far too liberal, his financial acumen was eclipsed by Romney’s and the taint of working for Obama rendered him totally unacceptable.
  2. Santorum was ignored not only by his fellow candidates, but also by the media. The mainstream media concentrated on diminishing anyone that it feared might pose a threat to Obama (including Romney, Gingrich, Perry and, to a lesser extent, Cain and Bachmann). But the media didn’t see Santorum as a cause for worry (because he clearly could not get the nomination), so they ignored him. Again, this did nothing to promote Rick’s candidacy, but it also did nothing to scuttle it.
  3. Santorum benefitted from the fact that the overall field was weak. Individuals that many thought might make the most formidable candidates (Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour, and even Donald Trump or Sarah Palin or General Petraeus) chose not to run. What remained was considered a not terribly distinguished field. Thus Santorum did not suffer by comparison.
  4. The leading candidate could not close the deal. This notion has been well covered – Mitt Romney did not generate much enthusiasm among hardcore conservatives. Therefore, despite his money and organization, he was not able to run away with the nomination. This left the door open for others, like Santorum, to hang around.
  5. Two new features of the nomination process helped Santorum: (i) proportional selection of delegates – which guaranteed a protracted contest; and (ii) the existence of Super PACs, which enabled a small number of wealthy donors to keep a candidacy afloat.

Even though the overall field was weak, there were three – perhaps four – candidates with the requisite credentials that should have banished Santorum to the sidelines long ago: Romney, Perry, Pawlenty and perhaps Gingrich. The first three had robust executive experience, a successful record as such, adequate backing and a reasonable personality. Gingrich is less well-endowed with these qualities, but as the debates revealed, he exhibits exceptional intelligence and creativity. However, Gingrich is also undisciplined and quixotic. Furthermore, Perry’s performance at the debates was so horrible that he completely disqualified himself; and Pawlenty didn’t do much better as he came across as small-minded and mean-spirited. It’s not surprising that Cain and Bachmann are gone – they were not serious candidates, and although each had a brief moment in the sun, neither had a path to the nomination. Paul, who represents the roughly 10% (perhaps less) of the electorate that is libertarian, is trolling for delegates in the hope of having some influence on the nominee and/or platform at the convention. His marginalization is appropriate. And as for Romney, just about everything has been said about his inability to quickly seal the deal – for reasons that are well known.

So the GOP is left with the last non-Romney – whiny, unaccomplished Rick Santorum. He has no executive experience, a less than endearing personality, no sterling political accomplishments in his résumé and is easily painted as an extreme social conservative. Romney will probably eventually prevail – his Illinois victory this week is more of a harbinger than Santorum’s two southern victories last week. But if Rick somehow does manage to secure the nomination, it will be a calamity – for the GOP and for the nation. Not only will he lose to Obama, he could jeopardize GOP control of the House and enable a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate. A second administration with the same parameters as in Obama’s first two years could have dire consequences for America: skyrocketing taxes and spending, Greece-like deficits and debt, Obamacare fully implemented, Cap & Trade, and so much more – gigantic steps toward converting America from a freedom-loving republic into a collectivist, Euro welfare state, impotent in foreign affairs and slavishly dependent on an increasingly tyrannical federal government at home.

Romney is no Reagan. But he is conservative America’s best chance to defeat Obama. And even if he doesn‘t, the ticket he will lead should retain enough handles on the government to forestall the nightmares outlined above and give traditional America some reason to hang on for a while longer until a Reagan-like savior finally appears.
______
This post also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at:

Netanyahu’s Existential Decision

On Netanyahu’s fateful choice, and the monumental consequences — whichever way he decides.

For the fourth time in Israel’s relatively brief existence, its Prime Minister is faced with an existential choice. Anyone who is paying attention recognizes that Benjamin Netanyahu is confronted with the agonizing decision whether to launch a pre-emptive military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The threats to Israel, to Iran, indeed to virtually the entire world posed by the consequences of his decision are staggering. Depending upon the outcome of an Israeli strike – should it occur – the consequences could include:

  • Tens of thousands of missiles (launched by Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran itself) raining down upon all of Israel, resulting in calamitous destruction and death.
  • The closing of the Straits of Hormuz and a confrontation between Iran and the US that could easily escalate into a broader war engaging many nations.
  • Widespread acts of terror against unknown Western targets, conceivably involving weapons of mass destruction.
  • The destabilization of the Iranian regime leading to revolution and foment all over the Middle East.
  • An abrogation by the Obama administration of the historic alliance between Israel and the US, resulting in the total isolation of Israel – which might tempt its numerous enemies to contemplate a massive frontal assault that Israel could repel only by the use of its nuclear arsenal.
  • Or something worse.

However, should Israel choose not to attack, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran might have equally cataclysmic consequences:

  • A nuclear attack by Iran on Israel, either by ballistic missiles or via a dirty bomb, terror approach.
  • The initiation of a massive nuclear arms race all over the Middle East.
  • Iran achieves a hegemonic domination of the region based on its nuclear prowess.
  • Iran routinely applies nuclear threats and intimidation to destabilize or overthrow any region in the region that it finds offensive.
  • Israel, horrified at one or more of the above, decides to preemptively attack Iran – even though the consequences of the bombing of “online” facilities could lead to a nuclear holocaust.

But perhaps, this outlook is too Cassandra-like; an Israeli strike could be a phenomenal success: Iran’s nuclear capabilities are utterly destroyed, civilian casualties are minimal, the regime falls, a democratic government takes its place and a better day dawns for all of the Middle East. Once again, the tiny state of Israel miraculously defies all odds and a decade of peace is ensured. It’s happened before. In fact, this is the fourth installment of this saga. The previous three were:

  1. David Ben Gurion’s decision in May, 1948 whether to declare independence.
  2. Levi Eshkol’s decision in June 1967 whether to initiate hostilities to forestall Nasser’s (and his allies’) boldly stated intention to invade Israel and drive its inhabitants into the sea.
  3. Golda Meir’s decision in October 1973 whether – having been apprised of Sadat’s (and his allies’) intention to strike Israel on Yom Kippur – to preempt by opening hostilities first.

In every case, Israel’s fate hung in the balance. In the first two instances, the Prime Minister and the Israeli Cabinet chose the bold, aggressive, exceedingly risky course of action. In the third, Ms. Meir did not. History records that – although the first two decisions brought forth a great deal of pain and sacrifice (especially in 1948) – Ben Gurion and Eshkol made the right decision, whereas Meir did not. Had either of the two gentlemen not made his decision as he did, it is likely that Israel would not exist today. And because of Meir’s decision, Israel almost did not survive.

As grave as those pivotal points were, one could argue that Netanyahu’s choice is potentially even more consequential:

  • In the previous crises, weapons of mass destruction were not on the table.
  • The world-wide ramifications of an Israel-Iran conflict are greater than they were for the Israel-Egypt conflicts of the past.
  • Even with a “victory,” the potential for civilian casualties and infrastructure destruction in Israel is much greater in this round.
  • Israel might be more isolated internationally than heretofore.
  • The probability of Israeli success is arguably less this time.
  • There is no chance for secrecy or to launch a truly surprise attack.

Yet, there are incontrovertible facts that Netanyahu cannot ignore. The maniacal leaders of a bloodthirsty, irrational, hate-filled regime have announced flagrantly and repeatedly their intention to destroy his nation. The world dismisses the threat as mere words. Alas, Netanyahu is watching the replay of a bad movie. The original was featured just 70 years ago. The scenario is sickeningly similar. And the monsters who made the threats in the original carried them out – with horrific, existential consequences. World-wide conquest by Herr Hitler was not beyond the realm of possibility. Had he succeeded, it is possible that he could have brought about the extinction of the Jewish people. I have no doubt that the evil Mullahs would be pleased to complete Herr Hitler’s unfinished task. They cannot be permitted to try.

But they have not squeezed the trigger yet. Can Netanyahu be certain that they will? Even if not, can he take the chance? Oh, the uncertainty! The perilous consequences! The bloodshed! Isn’t there another way?

Can you imagine what it is to be in Netanyahu’s shoes? The survival of the Jewish people and the fate of the world arguably rest in his hands. What an awesome responsibility! The consequences are monumental – no matter which way he decides. God grant him the wisdom the make the right choice.
____
This article appeared in The American Thinker at:
and also in The Intellectual Conservative at:

An American Jewish Problem Now Confronts Gentile America

The Rabbi of my synagogue gave a fascinating sermon recently. He praised America as a blessing for its Jewish citizens, but he said that it also threatened their Jewish identity. As he put it: “America is killing us with kindness.” He cited a survey that caused a ruckus a few years ago when it revealed that a surprising number of gentile Americans sought to marry Jews. He went on to point out that America posed a unique problem for its Jewish citizens – a problem virtually unparalleled in the history of the Jewish people.

Specifically, the United States is the first (and arguably the sole) country in world history that is dedicated primarily to the ideals of individual liberty, limited government and sacred personal rights granted by God and not the government. Because of the environment created by this credo, Jews, like all Americans, are free to choose their spiritual, cultural and economic paths in life without being subject to a veto of their plans by any corporal higher authority – of course, within the rule of law. The modus operandi of Jewish civilization over the millennia is quite different. As the Rabbi phrased it, Jewish life is more dictated by “commandment” than by individual freedom. First and foremost, the Jew is enjoined to be faithful to God’s law, as transmitted by Moses, which entails a great deal of limitation on his individual freedom. One can argue – and scores have – that it is precisely this faithfulness to binding commandments that has allowed the Jews to survive many centuries of persecution and torment.

But Jews are not persecuted or tormented in America. We are free to pursue our individual dreams as much as is any other American citizen. And we have done so, with a remarkable degree of success. Furthermore, our beloved country has welcomed and celebrated our success as much as it has for individuals from any other ethnic or religious group. Ah, but there is the rub. Observing the success of their American Jewish brethren and ancestors, increasing numbers of Jewish youth have opted to pursue their individual dreams at the expense of their Jewish heritage. Thus the Rabbi’s humorous lament that “America is killing us with kindness.”

Now how does this Jewish problem translate over to a problem for gentile America? The issue is a clash between an individual’s identity as a member of some religious, ethnic, racial or regional subgroup of Americans as opposed to his identity as an American.

It is my contention that prior to the Civil War, the issue arose primarily with regard to region and race. Ethnically and religiously, the country was relatively, but certainly not completely homogeneous. While the people were mainly of European ancestry, ethnic Germans and ethnic Irish often did not see eye-to–eye, for example. Similarly, while the population was overwhelmingly Christian, the variety of sects and denominations often made for contentious relations. But among the vast majority of these groupings, disharmony between them was not reflected in any group feeling disaffected from the national ethos. There was no fundamental clash between any individual’s ethnic or religious identity and those of the nation as a whole.

This was not true in matters of race or region. The slave population certainly could not identify with American principles since the benefits of those principles were denied to them. And because of that, when combined with certain economic considerations, a huge regional divide opened up between North and South. Furthermore, those in the South definitely felt a disconnect between their moral values and those of the national psyche.

The regional issue was resolved by the Civil War, although the racial issue would take another century to heal. But here is my point: despite massive immigration – whose people the US did an amazing job of digesting, assimilating and fusing with the native population – during the roughly 75-year period from 1875 to 1950, the issue essentially did not arise. During this period, Americans by in large felt little conflict between their local identity (be it religious, ethnic or whatever) and their identity as Americans. (Again, there may have been conflicts between different groups, but very few felt a sense of alienation from their country’s ethos.)

The 1960s would put an end to that. Actually, the progressive cancer had been eating away at traditional America for more than half a century. But it was in the latter part of the twentieth century that traditional America succumbed to the lethal progressive advance. The country ceased to be committed in a primal way to individual liberty, limited government and, as Mr. Jefferson, put it, unalienable rights endowed by the Creator. Increasingly, our rights came from the federal government, a government which ruled by its own designs and not according to the consent of the governed. As a consequence, many segments of the American population found themselves at odds with the national government. Some of those segments included: white males – who were beset at every turn by government policies that disfavored them; WASPs – who fell prey to multiculturalism; entrepreneurs – who came under suspicion because they earned too much money; gun owners – viewed as a threat to the increasingly hegemonic federal government; rural Americans – considered provincial, backward and reactionary; but above all else, religious people – deemed hopelessly retrograde and a threat to the progressive script for a secular, humanist America made safe for unlimited abortion, same-sex marriage and illegal immigration. Even patriots became suspect as America was now seen as a flawed country, not at all exceptional among the nations.

Many in these groups now found themselves in the same place as American Jews. Namely, there arose a fundamental clash between their communal values and those foisted upon them by a distant national government.

There are two basic differences in the nature of the problem faced (for at least three generations) by Jewish Americans and the somewhat newer problem experienced by portions of gentile America. First, for Jews, the choice was between two pleasant alternatives. Not so for Americans who feel oppressed by a gargantuan, debt-ridden, unresponsive government. The second difference is in how the two communities deal with the problem. At least for now, disfavored Americans are fighting back – convening TEA parties, trying to capture the Republican Party and thereby the controls of government, working feverishly in political, cultural and economic spheres to restore America to its traditional roots. It is a formidable challenge, but they seek to change the national paradigm.

Jews cannot imagine such a capability. Constituting less than 2% of the population (already a devastating indicator of our precarious state as in 1950 we constituted 4%), we are not about to change the ethos of the nation. But I have argued that the progressives managed to do so. And how has that change impacted the Jews? The halving of our percentage of the population supplies the answer: not well! In fact, a tremendous percentage of American Jewry has bought into the progressive line and has switched its allegiance from Judaism to liberalism. (This is explained brilliantly in Norman Podhoretz’s book, Why Are Jews Liberal.) The remaining part of American Jewry has the daunting task of on the one hand, joining with the disfavored segments of American society that seek to restore a traditional America, while at the same time, retaining their Jewish identity in a restored America of individual liberty.
____
This article also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at: