Broken Deals: Violating the Commandments, Abrogating the Constitution

I happen to be a member of two communities, inside each of which a majority of the members is in the process of abandoning the fundamental agreement that established the community. I am speaking about the Jewish people and the United States of America. In the first case, the deal was struck more than three thousand years ago; in the latter, a mere two and one quarter centuries have passed since the bargain was made. My purpose here is: to briefly describe the deals, who made them and how they were ratified; then to present some evidence to establish that indeed they are being broken; and finally, to compare the two processes of revocation in order to uncover both the similarities and differences between them. The latter comparison will lead me to some speculative thoughts on the consequences these broken deals might have in the future.

The deal that set the Jewish people off on their at times majestic, at times horrific journey through history was struck in the Sinai after the Exodus from Egypt. The deal was between a ragtag bunch of homeless tribes unified in their belief in a single God and that God. The people promised that they would lead a holy life, chiefly by complying with a set of complicated, onerous and in some ways incomprehensible laws that He ordained for them. In return, He would make them a mighty nation whose example would lead all the peoples of the world to accept God’s reign under which humanity would know peace and harmony. It is not unreasonable to view the Jewish people’s willingness to endure 40 years in the desert without losing their faith and the resulting successful conquest of Canaan as the ratification of the deal by both parties. But God’s promise has not been fulfilled. Many Jews would argue that that is because the Jews have not kept their part of the bargain.

The deal that established the USA is more recent and more concrete. It is laid out clearly in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The parties to the deal were the American people, that is, the Yanks of the late eighteenth century made the deal with themselves. Of course, like the Jewish deal, it obligated the descendants of the original deal-makers to adhere to the terms. And like the deal the Jews made with God, the terms of the deal the American patriots made with themselves are not hard to state. Briefly, in exchange for establishing a system of government characterized by: clearly delineated limited powers, entrusted to distinct branches of government, subject to checks and balances between the branches and between the federal and state governments, and capable of modification only by an elaborate process that required the support of the great majority of the people; in return, the people would enjoy individual liberty, clearly enunciated rights and freedoms, equal opportunity to achieve prosperity and a civil society upon which the government and its members would not tread. The deal was ratified by the thirteen colonies and the American people largely lived up to the bargain for more than a century. But in the last hundred years, the deal has been slowly unraveling.

That both deals are in a poor state of repair is self-evident. First, the percentage of world Jewry that adheres to the laws God set down for them is very low—certainly no more than 10%. Moreover, one probably has to go back to the nineteenth century to discover a time when that percentage was significantly higher. God hasn’t been doing such a great job holding up his end either. It is only two thirds of a century since he allowed one third of his partners to be ruthlessly butchered. Yes, the State of Israel was born and American Jewry enjoys great freedom to pursue its Jewish culture and traditions. But ‘a mighty nation leading the world to peace and harmony.’ I think not. The world-wide animosity toward Israel and the Jewish people is as deep and wide as at any time in recent centuries.

Sad to say, the American deal is not in great shape either. Let me review: limited government—hardly; checks and balances—Congress has relinquished its power to declare war, the executive violates the Bill of Rights with impunity, and the Courts usurp the powers of both the executive and legislative branches with abandon; a federal system with sovereignty shared by the national and state governments—that would be news to the States; and finally, both the government and the people ignore the Constitution as if it were a dusty old family document in the attic that invokes fond memories but has little relevance to life today. As a consequence, our freedoms are eroding, our prosperity is at risk, group rights are eclipsing individual liberty and society is not so civil any longer.

Well, you might say, this is very interesting, but what do the two phenomena have to do with one another? The answer will emerge from a close examination of where the two processes resemble each other, and where they differ.

First, the processes of severing their seminal agreements—which is being perpetrated by Jews and Yanks—are alike in at least four main ways:

1. Double deals. The Jews concluded their deal with God, but certainly the deal was also with themselves and with their posterity. The 12 tribes might have been unified in their monotheistic belief, but they also had separate identities and they saw the deal as a mutual obligation. Furthermore, it goes without saying that they expected their progeny to maintain the agreement.

Similarly, although the Yanks of 1775-1787 were binding themselves to a specific form of government and organization of society, they saw themselves as fulfilling a holy vision, and in particular they believed that their success in the Revolutionary War could not have been achieved without the benevolent hand of Divine Providence. The writings of the Founding Fathers are well-stocked with references to America as the new Jerusalem and the American people as the new Israelites. They definitely saw God as a party to the deal. And like the ancient Israelites, they expected that their descendants would live up to the agreement.

So in both cases, the deal breakers are betraying themselves, their God and their children.

2. Not a recent phenomenon. The cracks in both deals have been evident for a very long time. The Jews were fashioning golden calves almost from the beginning. The spies Moses sent to scout the land of Canaan doubted God’s ability to keep His promise. Indeed, Jewish history is overflowing with examples of both parties violating their obligations under the Sinai agreement. It’s a wonder that the parties still pay any homage to the agreement at all. (More on that later.)

As for the Yanks, I and others have repeatedly written about how the origins of the unraveling of the American experiment in self-government trace to the socialist ideas imported from Europe in the late nineteenth century. I won’t repeat the litany here, but let me just mention again that from John Dewey’s idea of ‘free’ public education intended to capture the minds of American youth, to Wilson and the 16th and 17th Amendments, to Roosevelt’s New Deal (note the choice of noun), to Johnson’s Great Society, to our current Messiah, we have seen a more or less steady drift of American society away from the ideals bequeathed to us by the Founders.

3. Remaining remnant. Neither revocation is complete. There exist ardent adherents in both communities who remain faithful to the terms of the deal as fervently as their forefathers were at the inception. Their percentage might be small, but they are deeply committed.

4. Failure to recognize. In both revocations, the descendants of the original deal-makers, who are throwing the agreement out, are either blind or naïve. Either they are unaware of what they are doing, i.e., they are truly ignorant of their obligations under their ancestors’ agreement. Or they believe that the course they are pursuing—which is in direct violation of their obligation—will actually improve on the deal, and that the radical changes they intend are consistent with the spirit, if not the letter, of the  agreement. Thus, one has Jews who see the pursuit of ‘social justice’ superseding religious obligation; moreover, they pronounce that such a pursuit is in fact a fulfillment of the deal at Sinai. Similarly, there are Americans who do not accept that their statist philosophy is a perversion of the founding agreement, but instead see it as consistent with the Founders’ Constitution—and even if not, it will yield a more just society than living under the Constitution has.

Next, let’s consider the key differences. I will highlight three.

1. Size. This is obvious. There are three hundred million Americans and perhaps as many as 14-15 million Jews in the world. The proportion is no better if instead one considers the size of only the remaining remnants. It’s hard to say in either case exactly what the size of the remnant is. But I venture that no more than 2-3 million Jews see themselves as bound by the deal at Sinai, while there might be as many as 60-75 million Americans who believe that the US should continue to be governed according to the principles of our founding documents. This would suggest that the latter (i.e., the remnant Americans) have a better chance of reinstating their deal than do the former (remnant Jews). But let’s see.

2. Dispensation. What I am after here is an understanding of ‘what comes after’ should the deal be totally forsaken. In fact, as with the matter of size, this issue appears to be transparent. Should the end of the ConstitutionalRepublic that is the USA come about, there will be no great Gotterdammerung. Our country will simply morph into a clone of a Euro-socialist state, as Canada has. Gradually, the memory of American exceptionalism will fade away and the people of the USA, or should I say the servants of the US Government, will live their lives unaware of what they have surrendered. Still, there are many unknowns. Will China come to dominate the world? What about India? Or will the Islamic fundamentalists succeed in creating a world-wide Caliphate? Whatever happens, the best we could hope for America is a continued existence as a second-rate power with scarcely a trace of the creative drive and prosperity that was fueled by the unparalleled freedoms we enjoyed in the past.

The fate of the Jewish people, should they totally renege on their deal, is easier to describe—oblivion. From the end of the Second World War until now (roughly two thirds of a century) the Jewish population of the world has increased by at most 25%, and probably less. Most of that increase can be attributed to the remaining remnant. If there will be no remnant, there will eventually be no Jewish people. If the maniacs in Iran and/or the Arab world manage to defeat Israel, the end might come very swiftly.

So while neither fate is particularly appetizing, one is much harsher than the other—extinction versus a radical change in the nature of the organism, but not its destruction.

3. Survival. Now I am thinking about what might happen should there continue to be a strong remnant, but its percentage does not rise significantly from its current state. Here my projection might surprise the reader. In fact, unlike #2, the advantage is to the Jews over the Americans. The Jewish people have proven, over a history whose length exceeds ten times that of the Americans, that their ability to survive—even the most horrendous circumstances (Shoahs, expulsions, pogroms and the like)—is unequaled by any group in history. I have absolutely no doubt that even a small group of Jews, if committed to the ideals of their forefathers, could survive—perhaps for another few millennia.

I am less sanguine about the survivability of the AmericanRepublic. We are perilously close to changing the fundamental nature of the nation. In a majority rule country like ours, should a sufficient percentage of the citizenry decide that it wants to make a completely new deal, there will be little the surviving remnant will be able to do save leave.

So let me conclude with a speculative glimpse into the future of both communities. As I said, time has proven that the power of the ideas put forth at Sinai is sufficient to guarantee the continued existence of a critical remnant of Jewry, committed to upholding the deal. Even if—God forbid—Israel and America should fold, that remnant will continue, likely in South America or Australia, perhaps even in corners of North America or Europe. Even if the light from the star that the Jewish people represent in the firmament of the world might dim, it’s not going out. Nevertheless, that does not excuse the Jewish people—all of them, not just the remnant—from its responsibility to do everything it can to ensure that the star continues to shine brightly. Unfortunately, as I have shown in two recent articles (http://www.freeman.org/MOL/pages/july2009/are-american-jews-the-most-foolish-voters-in-the-united-states.php and http://www.freeman.org/MOL/pages/sept2009/are-american-jews-the-most-foolish-voters-in-the-united-states–ii.php), the American Jewish community has not been doing such a good job discharging that responsibility. If the star dims, the percentage of the Jewish people that the remnant constitutes could grow—and then the ‘foolishness’ might cease.

As for the American deal, I fear that the vectors are pointing in the wrong direction. If I may quote from a previous article:

‘The Left has been advancing on many fronts in our country for more than a hundred years. They have captured the media, the educational establishment, most foundations, the legal profession and more. Their progress has been steady, highlighted by periods of huge leaps to port (under Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and perhaps now Obama). The only successful counterattacks in the 20th century came under Coolidge and Reagan. And while Reagan had some success, his good work has largely been undone by the Bushes and other fake conservative Republicans who aped and appeased the liberals over the last twenty years—which has resulted in the unmitigated disaster that the Obama-Pelosi-Reid regime represents.

It is easy for a conservative to survey the scene and be dejected. The behemoth that the Federal Government has become constrains our individual freedoms on a daily basis—and the Obama team is working feverishly to turn the screws tighter. The respect for Western Civilization and our Constitutional, republican system among the people is at an all-time low—and declining. Our economy is crippled by massive debt, a crumbling dollar and runaway entitlements; the latter summons the image of a train speeding on a one-way track toward a brick wall—and Obama is stepping on the accelerator. Who or what shall rescue us? Oh despair…’

Still, as the catchy line goes, ‘Predictions are difficult, especially of the future.’ At the time of Johnson’s Great Society, who could have predicted Reagan? And in the days of Reagan’s morning in America, who could have predicted Obama’s dark night? But I don’t foresee many more seesaw movements like this. It seems to me that one of two eventualities is in store for us. I believe that within a generation, two at most, either there will be a true, powerful and long-term conservative renaissance in the USA or we will slip irreversibly into a permanent leftist nightmare. By the former I mean a complete reversal of the statist path we have been traveling. I’m talking huge majorities in Congress, several presidents at least as conservative as Reagan, and the marginalization (but preferably the dismantling) of the liberal hegemony that the leftist-dominated media, educational system, legal profession and foundations have imposed on the nation. I know, it’s hard to imagine that happening, but I believe it is possible. If it doesn’t occur, then I think the slow (and sometimes not so slow) inexorable drift of American society to the left will pass what Thomas Sowell has called the ‘tipping point,’ on the other side of which is an egalitarian tyranny that spells the death knell for the Republic that our Founders envisioned. If that happens, given the horrendous mistake the American people made in the last election, I doubt that we will even recognize the moment that our collective heads slip under the water.

Obama Practices Reverse (or is it Perverse) Hospitality

In this past weekend’s headlines, I read: ‘Obama to meet with Myanmar rulers.’ This is reminiscent of other headlines of the same ilk like: ‘Obama bows to Saudi king’ or ‘Obama is nonplussed by Chavez’ tirade and gift of anti-US book’ or ‘Obama offers hand of friendship to Iranian Mullahs.’ Of course, Obama’s obsequious courtship of certain world leaders does not extend to everyone. Past headlines also include: ‘Obama to snub Israeli Prime Minister’ and ‘Obama removes bust of Winston Churchill from Oval Office’ and ‘Obama snatches missile defense shield from Poland and the Czech Republic.’

There seems to be a pattern here. If a country has long-standing, friendly relations with the USA, if its people share common values with the American people—like love of liberty, commitment to a society governed according to the rule of law, freedom of religion, free market capitalism—then it can expect the back of the hand from our enlightened President. Conversely, if a country is committed to repression of its citizens, a government-controlled economy, world-wide revolution and above all, enmity toward the United States, then its leaders can expect warmth and love from our post-American President. It wouldn’t surprise me if Obama extended an invitation to the White House to Hezbollah’s Nasrallah or Hamas’ Mashaal.

The ancient Chinese philosopher Sun-Tzu is reputed to have said: ‘Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.’ Popular culture attributes the aphorism to Michael Corleone in Godfather II. The thinking of our new godfather, er, that is, the President, modifies that to ‘you should fall all over yourself to be nice to your enemies, but it’s perfectly alright to kick your friends in the teeth.’

Preaching to the Choir

After a recent posting here, a regular reader sent me a message saying: ‘As usual, Ron, I like very much what you wrote; but in the end, what is the point? You are just preaching to the choir!’ By this, she meant that, as far as she could see, the readership of my blog—and other outlets of a similar bent—consisted of people who were already convinced of the merits of the arguments advanced by me and other conservative writers. Therefore, she wondered, what were we accomplishing beyond the reinforcement of each others already well-established beliefs? She has a point. But I also believe she misses some points. My goal here is to address her concern.

I will first lay out four objectives that I pursue in publishing a conservative point of view in the blogosphere. Then I will step back and briefly describe the current perilous state of our country, which is in part a consequence of the political drubbing that conservatives have suffered recently, occasioned by their failure to practice what they preach. This will lead to a fifth—and most crucial—reason for why it is important that conservative authors continue to fill the ‘pages’ of the conservative blogoshphere with their ideas.

1. Development and Reinforcement. The most basic objective, and the one I stand ‘accused of’ by my reader, is the development and reinforcement of my own ideas on political conservatism. A measure of the worth of one’s beliefs is how well they stand up to one’s own scrutiny as well as the scrutiny of one’s sympathetic listeners. More than three decades ago, my formerly liberal ideas failed that test when several traumatic events (chief among them the forced busing of my child) caused me to closely reexamine my political axioms. It is important that those who are motivated to put their political ideas ‘out there’ should regularly subject those ideas to the tests of self-examination and public scrutiny. In any event, the positive feedback I receive from readers is very reassuring.

2. Refinement. This is close to, but not exactly the same as the first objective. I seek not only to reinforce my and my ‘co-believers’ ideas, but also to refine and improve them. In this regard, the reactions I hear from both sympathetic and non-sympathetic readers are highly useful. We are often seduced by the harmony of our own music, but there is always room for improvement. Putting one’s ideas into the trough of public opinion is a good means to elicit both the friendly and unfriendly criticism that can lead to a sharpening of one’s arguments.

3. Influencing the opposition. I am always a little surprised to learn that my blog does receive some limited attention from liberal readers. In particular, I have many friends and relatives who fall in the enemy camp, and yet some of them read my posts carefully. Occasionally, I get correspondence from such a reader acknowledging a point I made and admitting the legitimacy of my view. A small but gratifying victory. No liberal would be exposed to conservative ideas if the blogosphere did not exist. Other conservative media outlets, some of which have substantial liberal following, play a similarly salutary role.

4. Winning the culture war. In several earlier postings (see, e.g., http://new.ronlipsman.com/2009/04/10/different-visions/ or http://new.ronlipsman.com/2009/05/17/what-culture-is-it-that-the-politics-have-caught-up-with/), I outlined a long-term strategy for recapturing the conservative spirit that once animated the majority of the American populace. Put simply, it was to reverse engineer the mechanism, dreamt up by socialist thinkers a century ago—which was to completely capture the culture of the nation, knowing that the politics would follow. That is precisely what has happened. In those articles I laid out some ideas for reversing the process. The conservative blogoshpere plays a fundamental role in motivating the foot soldiers of the counterrevolutionary struggle.

The Left has been advancing on many fronts in our country for more than a hundred years. They have captured the media, the educational establishment, most foundations, the legal profession and more. Their progress has been steady, highlighted by periods of huge leaps to port (under Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and perhaps now Obama). The only successful counterattacks in the 20th century came under Coolidge and Reagan. And while Reagan had some success, his good work has largely been undone by the Bushes and other fake conservative Republicans who aped and appeased the liberals over the last twenty years—which has resulted in the unmitigated disaster that the Obama-Pelosi-Reid regime represents.

It is easy for a conservative to survey the scene and be dejected. The behemoth that the Federal Government has become constrains our individual freedoms on a daily basis—and the Obama team is working feverishly to turn the screws tighter. The respect for Western Civilization and our Constitutional, republican system among the people is at an all-time low—and declining. Our economy is crippled by massive debt, a crumbling dollar and runaway entitlements; the latter summons the image of a train speeding on a one-way track toward a brick wall—and Obama is stepping on the accelerator. Who or what shall rescue us? Oh despair…which leads me to my last and most important reason why I, why all conservatives need to keep putting the truth before the American people.

5. Faith. The creation of the American experiment in self-government more than two centuries ago was an act of faith. Our founders had faith, not only in Divine Providence, but also in the good sense of the American people, whom they believed manifested a unique zeal for the ideals of individual liberty, limited government and moral propriety. They understood that the struggle to maintain those ideals in the future would be difficult—that it would require the continued benevolent hand of Providence and the good judgment of the people. Without these, the Republic would succumb to one of the tyrannies at either end of the political spectrum—the concentrated power of a despotic individual or group, or the mobocracy inherent in an unchecked ‘democracy’ devoted to mindless egalitarianism. Today the Republic is in danger, thanks to a bizarre combination of both extremes—albeit much more of the latter than the former.

The fifth objective of the conservative blogosphere is to express its continued faith that the two sets of hands into which our founders entrusted the American experiment are still reliable. Conservatives still believe, as Reagan said, that ‘God had a divine purpose in placing this land between the two great oceans to be found by those who had a special love of freedom and courage,‘ which expresses our faith in both founding pillars. If we lose that faith, then there truly is no hope.

Swimming Upstream: The Life of a Conservative Professor in Academia

This article appeared originally in the American Thinker at
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/swimming_upstream_the_life_of.html
I have been a faculty member at a major State University for 40 years. Several years after my arrival, I voted for George McGovern. Eight years later, I voted for Ronald Reagan. In those eight years, my family and I experienced several traumas that caused me to reevaluate — and ultimately, drastically alter — the political, cultural and economic axioms that had governed my life.

 

Within months of buying my first home in an excellent neighborhood, within walking distance to the University and, most importantly, located in a district with an outstanding local public elementary school, my five year old son was forcibly bussed to an inferior school, many miles away, in a horrible neighborhood in order to satisfy the utopian vision of a myopic federal judge. This betrayal of my fundamental rights was undoubtedly the greatest shock to my political psyche.

 

Another was a Sabbatical year spent living and working in Jerusalem, during which time the UN issued the infamous ‘Zionism is racism’ resolution. I was able to observe firsthand that the standard propaganda about Israel and Zionism that was promulgated in America and elsewhere — almost exclusively by those on the Left that I had formerly supported — was nothing more than bald-faced, hateful lies. This and other events in the 1970s caused me to rethink everything that I had taken for granted since adolescence about how the world worked.

 

I emerged from the exercise as an enthusiastic conservative. Thus I was no longer your average faculty member who adhered to the liberal party line, but instead one of a tiny cadre who completely disagreed with the leftist mentality that dominated the thought of campus faculty and administrators.

 

The overwhelmingly liberal atmosphere on campus is well known. In the one place in society at which there should be diversity of thought, exploration of conflicting ideas and a propensity to challenge conventional wisdom, we have instead a mind-numbing conformity of opinion and a complete unwillingness to entertain any thought or idea that deviates from the accepted truth. That conformity encompasses:

 

  • The legitimacy of virtually any program that promotes the interests of minority and female faculty, staff and students, even if the program is blatantly racist or sexist — justified by a belief that America’s past unjust treatment of blacks, American Indians and Japanese-Americans, and its unfair treatment of women render such discrimination necessary and lawful.
  • A multicultural mentality, which preaches that America’s Eurocentric, white, Christian heritage is responsible for colonialism, imperialism, racism and sexism, and that its replacement by a culture that ‘celebrates diversity’ will transform the US into a more just and humane society.
  • A distrust of free markets and democratic capitalism, and its severe limitation in favor of a centralized, government-controlled economy that will redistribute the wealth of America more fairly.
  • A denigration of religious belief and its replacement by the ‘worship’ of secular humanism, with mindless environmentalism occupying a central place in the new religion.

 

Not being in sync with any of this, how did I cope? Not so well, actually. First of all, it took me a long time to recognize and accept that the university atmosphere I knew as a student was gone. Initially, I was too busy pursuing my career and building my academic resume to notice what a fish out of water I had become.

 

My epiphany came about 20 years ago at the inauguration of a new campus president. In his acceptance speech, he said many things that seemed bizarre to me, but the comment I recall most vividly was his insistence that he would create a world-class university by building ‘excellence through diversity.’ His point seemed to be that by substantially increasing the number of minority and female faculty, staff and students (and consequently decreasing the number of white males), this would of necessity make us a great university.

 

I always thought that the best way to build a great university was to attract the brightest, most innovative and productive faculty and students — regardless of their hue — but I realized at that moment, as the applause for his idea rained down, how out of step I was.

 

What did I do? To my eternal shame, I ducked. Oh initially, during a painful, but relatively brief period, I contested the new campus consensus. People quickly, but politely, informed me that my ideas were retrograde and that I would be well advised to get with the program. In fact, I was passed over for an administrative position I coveted and for which I was far more qualified than the individual selected. Realizing that my resistance was damaging my reputation on campus, I more or less clammed up and spent more than a decade trying to ignore the poisonous atmosphere.

 

This less than noble strategy proved effective and eventually I achieved a high administrative position in which I adhered to policies and shepherded programs that were diametrically opposed to my fundamental beliefs. For years I tended to my bleeding tongue because I was constantly biting it during meetings to prevent myself from blurting out my true feelings about the bigoted ideas that constituted the consensus of the folks at the table.

 

But as I began to near retirement, I decided there was no point in maintaining my forced silence any longer. As I had 15 years earlier, I unburdened myself and let fly my misgivings about the liberal campus hegemony. What happened this time? Here come three novel observations: 

  1. To my surprise, my “retrograde” conservative opinions were not met with calumny or derision, but rather with smiles and amusement. “Oh, that’s just Ron being Ron,” it was said. I wasn’t viewed as a threat to the campus philosophy, but rather as some kind of queer duck to be tolerated at best, ignored at worst. This was certainly more pleasant for me than being told to shut up and get your head straight as I anticipated. But it was also incredibly frustrating that colleagues didn’t take me seriously. The impression I had was that they felt there was no reason to take my ideas seriously because I was so obviously wrong that no right-thinking person could be swayed by my arguments.
  2. My second observation is that I was not the only one failing to make waves. In fact, there were no waves whatsoever. There was no debate, no controversy; just the calm serenity of a campus at peace with its almost universally accepted mind set. I attribute this to three things. First, of course, anyone raising an objection was viewed, as I was, as hopelessly out of it and worthy only of being ignored. This has a chilling effect, perhaps even more effective than derision. Second, I suspect that those who believed as I did were still in lockdown mode—for the same reasons as I was over the years. And third, I believe the liberal brainwash has been so effective on campus—and in the national educational system in general—that many in the liberal majority can’t even fathom that there is anyone who doubts the legitimacy of their point of view.
  3. My final observation is the following. The liberal hegemony exists in many quarters of the country beside academia—e.g., the mainstream media, major foundations, law schools and the trail lawyers they produce, public school teachers, the Democratic Party, even big corporations. But none of these can maintain the atmosphere as effortlessly as campus profs and administrators. Politicians encounter opposition from their constituents; the media from its readers, listeners and viewers; trail lawyers from their clients; and corporations from their stockholders and consumers. But the educational establishment—both higher and lower—encounters little resistance. The students are ignorant, the parents are cowed, and Boards of Regents are cowardly. The ivory tower is alive and well in America and the intellectual product it presents is completely one-sided. What a tragedy for our nation and especially for its youth.

 

On the Existential Threat to Israel, II

In a previous blog posting (http://new.ronlipsman.com/2009/08/05/on-the-existential-threat-to-israel/), I discussed a hostof existential threats to the State of Israel as described in several pieces of recent literature. I argued that the threats could be subsumed under the rubric of ‘three mega-trends that encompass them, and which pose a mortal danger to more than just tiny, beleaguered Israel. Those trends are:

  1. A worldwide resurgence of Islam, much of it in a radical and deadly mode;
  2. A worldwide resurgence of virulent Anti-Semitism, much of it cloaked as anti-Zionism, but in reality nothing more than old-fashioned Jew hatred;
  3. The steep decline within Western Civilization of self-esteem.

That the portentous eruptions implicit in numbers 1 and 2 pose a grave threat to Israel is totally self-evident. On the other hand, the identification of the third trend as the parent of certain existential threats to Israel required some explanation. Now by that trend I meant the declining belief by the peoples of Europe and North America that the fundamental political, cultural, religious and social principles, which undergird the advanced civilization they constructed and maintained during the last half-millennium, have any validity any longer. No civilization, lacking faith in its own bedrock principles, legends, stories, religions and history can long endure. Witness the demise of the late, unlamented Soviet Union, occasioned by precisely such a loss of self-esteem. The West appears headed down the same road with Europe in the lead — but with Obama in the saddle, the US is rushing to catch up. And Israel, which is surely an outpost of Western Civilization, has moved toward the head of the pack. A more precise tie-in to Israel was via the observation that the growing leftist, multicultural, pacifistic, egalitarian, anti-patriotic, anti-religious, corruption-riddled mentality that inhabits the Israeli body politic is, I believe, a manifestation of exactly the same kind of loss of self-esteem that is crippling Europe and increasingly the United States.

The question left unanswered by the article was: What is Israel to do about these threats? How can it deal with the three trends in order to preserve not only its existence, but its vibrance as an independent state, governed by the rule of law, with a (mostly) free and vigorous economy and a society characterized by high levels of education, culture, achievement and faith? It is my humble goal to offer here a few suggestions.

In truth there is precious little that Israel can do about the first two trends. The emergence of radical Islamism in the latter part of the twentieth century has far more to do with the end of the Cold War than it does with any actions taken by Israel. Yes, it is fashionable to assert that the failure to conclude a peace between Israel and the Arab World, and especially between the Jews and Arabs in the lands that constituted the British Mandate of Palestine, is the root cause of Arab unrest in the Middle East and Muslim hostility to the US in particular and the West in general. That is complete and utter nonsense. There is not a shred of evidence indicating that, had Israel not come into existence, the Arab and more generally the Muslim world would be a sea of tranquility, content to live in peace with its non-Muslim neighbors in the West and East. On the contrary, with the demise of Soviet Communism and the increasing demoralization in the West, the Muslim world sees itself as ascendant and, moreover, it appears anxious to spread its influence and rule over vast stretches of the planet. Israel is just one small obstacle in its path — albeit one it has found difficult to overcome. Israel could agree to every demand of the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Ahmedinejad — which of course would be tantamount to national suicide — and it wouldn’t decrease by one iota the Islamic assault on Western Civilization.

Similarly, there is not much Israel can do about resurgent world-wide anti-Semitism. Treatises have been written offering numerous reasons for the continued existence of this deadly malady. The horror of the Holocaust — the systematic murder of one-half of European Jewry, one-third of the Jews on Earth— put the disease in remission for a period of time. But that period is over. Jew hatred is once again rampant in Europe and of course it never really disappeared from the Muslim world. There is no conceivable course of action by Israel and world Jewry that could cure this deadly disease — save perhaps mass suicide. And even that might not work. The expressions of anti-Semitism in corners of the world where there are no Jews (e.g., Southeast Asia) makes one blink in wonder. Our very existence — past as well as present — is a casus belli.

I believe the people of Israel recognize these facts. Islam has been at war with them for nearly a hundred years. How could the Israelis not notice? Indeed, the memory banks of most Israelis — so many of whom are descendants of victims and survivors of the Holocaust, of other pogroms in Europe and the Middle East, and of Arab terror in Israel itself — are indelibly stamped with the ability to recognize Jew hatred in the Muslim world or wherever they see it. The Jews of Israel have been dealing with it for generations with enough success to allow themselves to stay alive. How?

The answer is by being resolute, strong, courageous, determined — and violent when necessary. Realizing that you are in a fight to the death is more than half the battle. If you do, then you have a shot at building and maintaining the strength and courage to face down your enemies. Denial or appeasement on the other hand is a prescription for death. The Jews of Israel have pursued a policy of strength for 80 years. But there are some signs lately that Israel’s prosecution of this policy is weakening. The reason is precisely because Israel has fallen prey to the phenomenon of declining self-esteem that is so widespread in Europe and North America. (For more on this, see http://new.ronlipsman.com/2009/09/04/is-the-united-states-of-america-doomed/ and http://new.ronlipsman.com/2009/07/07/the-nature-of-obamas-liberalism/.)

Thus I believe that trends 1 and 2 are manageable — not easily and not without great sacrifice — but only if number 3 is dealt with successfully. And it is here that I believe there are some concrete steps that Israel could take.

The first main step is to recognize that the issue is cultural, not political. As was recognized a hundred years ago by radicals like John Dewey and Antonio Gramsci, one can change the nature of a country by capturing its culture, the politics will follow. (This is also discussed at some length in http://new.ronlipsman.com/2009/05/17/what-culture-is-it-that-the-politics-have-caught-up-with/ and http://new.ronlipsman.com/2009/04/10/different-visions/.) Of course this is precisely what has happened in Western Europe, as well as in the US and Israel — although not quite as deeply in the latter instances as in the former. The solution: take back the culture. I am not as conversant with Israeli society as I am with American society, but it seems to me that conservatives and traditionalists in Israel need to:

  • develop extensive conservative, cultural media outlets analogous to American talk radio, the Washington Times and magazines like Commentary and the American Spectator;
  • develop robust think tanks that will promote traditional ideas and policies — e.g., like the Heritage Foundation;
  • try to displace the leftists who control the educational system;
  • resist judicial usurpations that cripple the nation’s ability to defend itself and that diminish the Zionist creed that gives meaning to the State;
  • continue and intensify Israel’s defiance of anti-Semitic regimes around the globe — and the spineless governments and organizations that appease them — who demonize her and attempt to delegitimize her.

I am sure there is no shortage of Israelis who could easily embellish this limited set of recommendations in order to produce a more extensive program of self-renewal and pride in Israeli culture. Implementing it is another matter.

Next, any objective observer would agree that Israel has the right —inherent from the Bible and more than three millennia of history, and codified in the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations Mandate and the United Nations’ resolutions of the late 1940s — to its existence as a Jewish State in the formerly British-administered territory of Palestine; and that any threat to that existence is an act of war, with genocidal overtones, against the Jewish inhabitants of that State. Moreover, Israel has the unquestioned right to defend itself from those who promulgate such threats. These unalienable truths must be drummed into the heads of Israeli youth and repeated incessantly to the nations of the world who deign to doubt them.

The third major step is an acknowledgement that the record compiled by Israel in its 60+ years of existence is at least as meritorious as that of any other nation in that time and easily exceeds most. It includes:

  • defending itself successfully against its mortal enemies despite vastly unfavorable odds;
  • developing a national culture of scientific development, artistic achievement, aid to less fortunate nations, tolerance and respect for its non-Jewish minority, and constructing a society governed according to the rule of law;
  • becoming a world leader in technological innovation and development;
  • reviving Jewish nationhood and language after an hiatus of two millennia;
  • building a robust economy and increasing the prosperity of its citizens;
  • assimilating millions of immigrants successfully.

This is a record of achievement of which any nation would be proud to boast. But like its basic rights, these achievements must be trumpeted endlessly to its own people and to the world. Together, these steps — initiating a domestic ‘culture war’ to recapture the cultural (and political) initiative and promulgating, to their own people and to the world, the country’s rights and accomplishments — would go a long way toward helping Israel deal with its self-esteem problem, and consequently with the existential threats it faces.

Even if Israel takes these steps — and I believe it must if it is to survive — it will still face formidable challenges, some of which could prove fatal. For example, here are five, at least the first two of which have lethal potential:

  • the Arab demographic problem;
  • the nuclear threat from Iran;
  • an overdependence on the US, especially in light of the fact that the new US President is less than favorably inclined toward the Jewish State;
  • the inability in six decades to satisfactorily reconcile the religious-secular divide in the body politic; and
  • a leadership that is unworthy of the people’s trust.

Apropos the last, Netanyahu is now the key person facing these formidable challenges. The nearly universal assessment is that he didn’t perform so well in his first stint as Prime Minister. We shall know soon whether he fares better this time.