I’m Sorry, But Soccer is still BORING

The quadrennial, American pseudo soccer craze ended on June 30 when reality crashed the party – the US team was outclassed by that world mega power, Belgium. Every four years, the American sporting public is assured that the US soccer team is good enough to compete with the best in the world. But more than that, we are reminded forcefully that soccer is the most popular game on the planet; that it entails great physical stamina, delicate strategy, beautiful performances and high drama. It is pointedly suggested that our failure to elevate soccer in popularity to the level of the big four (football, baseball, basketball and hockey) is a testament to how out of step the American sporting public truly is.

Well, I’m not buying any of it. Yes, I dutifully watched the telecasts of the four US games in Brazil. But, with the exception of the game against Portugal, I found myself mostly bored. My eyes wandered endlessly to the clock in the upper right, thinking “how much more of this can I bear?” There is virtually no scoring. An absurd percentage of the games report a scintillating half-time score of ‘nil-nil’; and in too many of them, at the conclusion of the full (interminable) 90 minutes, the scoreboard is unaltered. And if – miracle of miracles – one team does manage a goal, then they spend the remaining time striving to arrange a thrilling final score of ‘one-nil.’ BORING!

Now don’t mistake me. I appreciate the skill, dexterity and physical prowess of the players. Some of the moves they make with the ball defy imagination. And I understand the teamwork that goes into advancing the ball and securing a shot on goal. But spectators go to a sporting event to witness a competition. You win a competition by scoring points. The act of scoring is the main objective of the players and coaches; and it is the moment that spectators pay to see. The more the better.

Again, don’t mistake me. I can appreciate a low-scoring pitcher’s duel in baseball. And every once in a while, it’s a pleasure when two superior football defenses deny their opponents the goal line. But I wouldn’t want that to be the norm. If it were, baseball and football would lose their popularity in the US rather quickly.

But that is the state of affairs in soccer in nearly every game. It’s akin to living your whole life knowing that there are going to be only one or two memorable moments in the entire journey. Why bother!

I have never been to an MLS game in the US. In the last ten years, I’ve watched maybe 15 minutes of it on TV. I suppose I will gather myself to tune in on the US team in 2018 – but I doubt anything will be different. There is nothing in soccer that can match Peyton Manning or LeBron James lighting up a scoreboard.

I suppose this attitude says something about me as an American. But I’ll leave the sociological analysis to the sports and culture sociologists. For me, soccer has no scoring, leaves me snoring and so I’ll go on ignoring the game the world calls football, but which I call boring.

This post also appeared in The Sports Column

The Age of Entitlement Comes to Campus

The spring semester recently concluded at the large state university campus where I still teach part-time (even though I am formally retired). The students in my post-calculus, differential equations course – a sophomore math offering taken mostly by engineering students – performed at a level commensurate with what is normally seen in this course. Thus the grades I issued conformed to the usual bell shaped curve and so one saw roughly 10% A’s, 20% B’s, 40% C’s, 20% D’s and 10% F’s. (Alright, I am not immune from the ubiquitous phenomenon of grade inflation – the actual grade distribution was definitely skewed somewhat higher.)

The students who failed the course largely knew that this was the likely outcome before even sitting for the final exam and – since their performance on the final confirmed their hopeless status – I had virtually no blowback from these students. But from the D students, an avalanche of email cascaded down upon me as soon as the grades were (electronically) available. The avalanche is explained in part by the following: despite the fact that D is considered a passing grade, the Engineering School will not give credit for the course unless the student obtains a C or higher grade. Thus, students who earn a D feel that, in spite of the fact that they did “good enough,” their effort was unrewarded and they are resentful that they have to repeat the course to get credit toward their degree.

Here is a typical example from the slew of emails I received – almost all of which matched this one in tone and content:

I am a second year chemical engineer and I need at least a C to pass the course. I honestly put a lot of time and effort into your class and I felt like I learned more than my course grade is reflecting. While studying for the final exam I spilled milk on my laptop, rendering it unusable. My father had to take me to the Apple store for repair. This whole ordeal took up most of my study time. I don’t mean to make excuses, but due to these circumstances I had a very short amount of time to study for the exam, and my performance was impacted. I honestly put a lot of time and effort into your class and I felt like I learned more than my course grade is reflecting. Considering all the good I’ve done throughout the semester, I think I should at least get a C. I will get kicked out of my major if I do not get a C in the class. Please reconsider my grade or even allow me to do any work to boost my grade. Once again Mr. Lipsman, I am asking out of the kindness of your heart please bump my grade up a little more, please! Please, if there is anything that you can do, I would very much appreciate it.

My typical response is a polite email, which points to the course web site (available to the students from the first day of class) that contains the grading scheme for the course; and then I highlight the specific poor points of performance on the student’s part that account for the unfortunate grade. (Conversations with colleagues reveal similar strategies.) That usually settles matters; but in a small number of cases, a student persists in pleading/demanding/scheming for a higher grade ex post facto. In that case, I turn the matter over to department or college administrators. On (fortunately, rare) occasion, matters can become rather unpleasant.

Even when I avoid such unpleasantness, I find these emails quite disturbing. Such an approach to a professor by a student would have been unthinkable two generations ago. But this kind of plea bargaining/begging for succor phenomenon has become increasingly common over the last decade or so. In fact, I believe this university student phenomenon reflects patterns of behavior that are prevalent throughout modern society. In this regard, universities reflect, as well as inaugurate and instigate various unwholesome features of our current culture.

In order to illustrate, I will identify the main themes that emerge from the email cavalcade that I endured:

  • The student claims to have worked hard on the course. In some instances, this may be true; but in many, I know that it is not. Too many students have a warped idea of what hard work actually entails.
  • The student is always a victim of some special circumstance (illness, accident, family crisis, poor advice, exceptionally challenging workload, etc.). The victim card is played often and instinctively. “It’s not my fault!”
  • The student asserts his “right to pass.” Implicit is the belief that if he is properly enrolled, in good standing and pursuing a legitimate degree program, then he is entitled to be passed through this checkpoint in his journey – regardless of performance. He is entitled to a C merely by his legitimate presence in the course.
  • “If you don’t give me a C, my future is in jeopardy.” Not only is he entitled, but the penalty for depriving him of his right will be severe. The resulting consequences for him will far outweigh any moral anguish suffered by me for distorting the legitimate outcome of the course’s process.
  • Finally, “You, professor, can fix this.” No notion of personal responsibility enters the equation. The burden of this unfortunate affair lands on my doorstep to correct the injustice. The student inhabits a cosmos in which he is not in control of his destiny.

I propose that each of the above five manifestations of the student entitlement mentality is reflective of patterns present in society in general.

  • Admittedly, this might be too heavily concentrated among government employees, but who hasn’t encountered an employee that complains of being overworked at the same time that both his inbox and outbox are suspiciously empty.
  • We’re all victims these days; of racism, sexism, ableism, and other isms you haven’t yet recognized. We’re being screwed by big corporations, small businessmen, unscrupulous co-workers, bad neighbors, even members of our family. We are all categorized into boxes according to race, gender, age, geography and so on. And we are certain that those in the other boxes are working feverishly to limit opportunities for the occupants of our box.
  • As a victim, my rights are being violated. I speak not of the rights granted to me by the Constitution, but instead those guaranteed to me by politicians.  These include my right to a great paying job, a fine home, the best medical care, a secure retirement, an exceptional education – not to mention nice clothes, top notch appliances, a month’s annual vacation and a great set of wheels. To all this, I am entitled because … well, because from FDR to Obama, I’ve been told so.
  • And if I don’t have these things, then not only are my rights being violated, but my life is being ruined.
  • Finally, it is the primary responsibility of the government to ensure that my rights are not violated and that all the things promised to me by government are delivered to me by that government.

Well, perhaps I’ve engaged in a bit of hyperbole to make a point. In fact, most students are hard-working, conscientious and respectful. But the fact that the number who are not is increasing is troublesome. That they are increasing in number could be a reflection of unhealthy trends in society in general.

Dealing with these societal issues is a topic for another time and place. But the university is equipped to cope with their manifestations on campus. I have communicated to the Department Chair, College Dean and Dean of Undergraduate Education some recommendations to do exactly that. They include:

  1. It should be explained emphatically to new students at freshman orientation that grades are not a commodity to be bargained for or negotiated over. Grades express faculty evaluation of student performance over an entire course. They are not an opening bid in an auction. They are arrived at carefully by faculty based on specific course performance criteria spelled out in detail at the start of the course. On most campuses, faculty are already obliged to make these criteria known to students at the outset of the semester.
  2. If a student feels very strongly that the grade he was issued violates the terms of the criteria, he may politely ask the faculty member for a clarification. If, after the reason for his grade is outlined to him by the faculty member, he is convinced that the faculty member has violated his own rules, then the student may file a formal grievance above the faculty member’s head at the Department or College level. American campuses have long experience in setting up structures to administer such a procedure. However, also at freshman orientation, it should be stressed to students that grade grievances should only be filed in the extremely rare instance that a faculty member has manifestly behaved unjustly.
  3. Students should also be apprised that anyone who files more than one grievance over the course of an academic career will be called in by the Dean of Undergraduate Education for an interview. At that time it can be pointed out to the student how multiple grievances are telltale signs of one or more of the unhealthy societal behaviors outlined earlier. The student would then have an opportunity to confront, evaluate and perhaps alter his cultural axioms.

The university has traditionally played a societal role in converting callow youth into mature and responsible adults. Let us not subvert that role by giving in to immature and irresponsible behavior.

This essay appeared in a slightly abridged version, under the title “Give Me a Better Grade — I Deserve It” in Minding the Campus

For the US, there are No ‘Good Guys’ in Iraq-Syria

Now we learn that Syrian warplanes are attacking ISIS in western Iraq. There is no end to the flavor of Muslim forces that are battling Assad’s government in Syria. But it is certain that among any of their arsenals, warplanes are not accounted for. The aircraft that are attacking ISIS definitely emanate from Assad’s air force. That would be the Assad about whom President Obama has said: “he must go.” Well, according to the well-worn concept of ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’… So which among these two blood-thirsty combatants – Assad’s genocidal, chemical weapons-toting troops or ISIS’s beheading-inclined, Islamofascist warriors – is the enemy and which is the friend?

How blind does one have to be not to see that neither side is a friend of the United States of America!

The Muslim world is aflame with sectarian violence. Much of it originates in the centuries-long enmity between its two main branches – Sunni and Shia. But it is also reflected in Arab vs Persian, fundamentalist vs ‘moderate,’ Muslim vs non-Muslim neighbor (e.g., India, China, black Africa and of course southeastern Europe), and Muslim vs any non-Muslim minority that has the misfortune to reside in the Muslim Umma. In all of these disputes, there is no Muslim component that supports the ideals and values which characterize the US, and western civilization, more generally – that is, religious tolerance, human life and freedom, rule of law, free markets and minority rights. There are no true friends of the United States to be found anywhere in the inferno that plagues the Muslim world today. There are some entities with whom we have struck temporary and convenient alliances – for example, Saudi Arabia. And we should continue to pursue such alliances if they serve our interests – and if our ‘partners’ do not give succor to those who mean us harm (fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were Saudi). But the thought of spilling another drop of American blood to protect any of these medieval combatants is sickening.

One must recognize that, as happened in Afghanistan fifteen years ago, if an outfit such as ISIS is able to create a region in which they are free to plan horrific attacks on the US, then that eventuality cries out for our a priori intervention. In such cases, I have no problem with massive air strikes, covert special forces operations and cyber and other remote warfare on the devils. But another intervention – such as we engaged in in Iraq and Afghanistan – seems likely to result in thousands more dead and wounded American GIs, with no satisfactory endgame. We have no real friends in the Muslim world. We should formulate our plans to protect and defend ourselves accordingly.

This post also appeared in The Ameican Thinker

Which Party is Furthest from the Center?

We are told incessantly by the media pundits that the GOP has moved sharply to the right. Supposedly, the Republican Party establishment is under assault from the Tea Party in a largely successful attempt to shift the Party’s center of gravity to starboard. No mention is made of the Democratic Party’s severe lurch to the left over the last half century. It is similarly unremarked how the cultural and political fulcrum of the nation as a whole has migrated to port during this time. No, the only political motion that concerns the moguls of the mass media and the pundits of the political press is the supposed rapid rush to the right of the Republican Party.

I have news for you. The Democratic Party has moved much further to the left than the Republican Party has moved to the right.

This is not an assertion that is easily quantified. But let us try. First of all, we must be clear about what we mean by left and right. If we take as the fundamental criterion the amount by which the government dominates the society, then on the extreme left we have totalitarianism, with authoritarianism to its right; whereas on the extreme right we have anarchy, with mass democracy abutting it on the left. In the center we have a constitutional, representative, federalist system such as in the United States. Of course it is a bit more complicated than that. But hopefully, we can agree that moves from the center to the left would certainly entail: more rather than less government taxation, spending and regulation; government restrictions on individual liberties, restraints on business, and limitations on property rights and freedom of association; and generally, a constriction of the individual rights found in the Bill of Rights in pursuit of more group equality, uniformity and social order.

On the other hand, a move from the center to the right would constitute essentially the reverse of the trends just outlined – in particular, the curtailment of government’s ability to interfere with the individual’s life, property or business; manifested by lower taxes, less government spending and regulation, etc.

Since 1900, the US has had two, perhaps three decades during which the country has moved to the right: the 20s, the 80s and arguably the 50s. In all other periods, the movement has been decidedly in the other direction – especially in the 10s, 30s, 60s, 70s and since the turn of the millennium. But what of the political parties themselves?

In the 1920s, the members and supporters of the Republican Party were generally a conservative bunch. In fact, I doubt that they contemplated their positions explicitly in the terms outlined above. More simply, they likely saw themselves as the inheritors (after a century and a half) of the traditions and mores established by the Founders – only updated to a more modern period. Thus they took seriously the sanctity of property and that business should be largely left alone by government (the Sherman Antitrust Act not withstanding). Republicans in that era subscribed to the idea that the government should limit its involvement in the people’s affairs and businesses. They had a healthy respect for federalism. Moreover, they strongly believed that charity was a matter best left to individuals and private associations, and that it was completely out of the purview of government. However, it is fair to say that the GOP commitment to liberty was not without blemish as the Party had a less than benign attitude toward the role of women and minorities in society. And its members certainly participated in and promoted crony capitalism. But overall, on the scale laid out earlier, the GOP occupied a rather conservative location on the right.

At the same time, the Democratic Party had already become infected with the progressive virus imported from Europe. The dramatic change in the Democratic Party (over the decades spanning the turn of the 20th century) is reflected in the distance between Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson (between whom there were only Republican presidents). Cleveland was quite conservative and in many ways little different from the Republican presidents who surrounded him. But Wilson was super liberal. For example, under his watch, America adopted the direct election of senators, established the Federal Income Tax and gave birth to the Federal Reserve Bank. All of this – and more of its ilk – occurred exactly a century ago as the Democratic Party veered sharply to the left. Moreover, not only were its initial steps to the left rather substantial, but it has never retreated back to the center. The only presidential candidate it nominated in the last hundred years who was not well to the left of center was John W. Davis (in 1924). Moreover, during those hundred years, the Democratic Party has experienced four hard leaps to the left – under Wilson, FDR, LBJ and now Obama. One could argue that small corrections occurred in between (e.g., Davis after Wilson, Truman after FDR, Humphrey after LBJ). But since the nomination of George McGovern, the Democratic Party has fled to the far left end of the political spectrum and there it has remained for 40 years. Until the arrival of Obama – a southpaw, mentally and physically – under whom it has plunged even further to the left.

The following ideas – which are unmistakably hard left on our scale – are now mainstream in the Democratic Party:

  • The Federal Government may spend any amount of money to address any issue it considers necessary to promote (what it perceives to be) the welfare of the American people. Debt and deficits are immaterial!
  • The Federal Government may impose any regulatory burden on American business it deems necessary in order to protect the people or the environment – cost, economic viability and limitation on freedom be damned.
  • The Federal Government may mandate the playing of favorites in hiring, firing, promotions, admissions, licensing and associations in order to further the goal of “diversity” – thereby in effect legally sanctioning immoral discrimination.
  • The Federal Government may confiscate the people’s wealth, property and business in order to redistribute resources more “fairly” among the population.
  • The American experience is rife with persecution, racism, sexism and colonialism especially in the treatment of women, minorities, gays and third world peoples; the nation has no moral claim to any exceptional status and its WASP heritage is a stain rather than a badge of honor.

These radical left positions are now the staple of the rank, file and leadership of the Democratic Party. They are hard left by any measure. It took a century to get there. But that is where the Democratic Party is, and largely has been for 40 years. It has dragged the country as a whole in that direction, although not as far as the Party has travelled. And it considers its positions to be the new normal, the new center. As far as it is concerned, the radical left positions expressed in the New York Times are dead center, whereas the mildly right ideas espoused on Fox News are far off in the right stratosphere.

Now what has happened to the Republican Party since its heyday in the roaring twenties? In some sense it was a spectator from the onset of the Depression until the arrival of the Eisenhower administration. During that time, it lost a great deal of confidence in its conservative ideals – so much so that Ike and the Republican Congress (in the 1950s) made little attempt to roll back FDR’s New Deal. In fact, the GOP was infected with some of the same progressive ideas that now dominated the Democratic Party. Johnson’s Great Society and the McGovernite capture of the Democratic Party did frighten the electorate, and so the Republicans had a near lock on the presidency for over 20 years (albeit not on the Congress). And, like the country, the GOP did swing back to the right during the 1980s. But it tossed aside that conservative correction with the arrival of the Bushes and again drifted slowly left from 1988 to 2010.

Once again, the Dems (in the person of Barack Obama) scared the hell out of the people – however, not nearly the percentage that they managed to frighten under Jimmy Carter. Since 2010 and the rise of the Tea Party, the GOP (and the nation, to some extent) has been pulled back to port. That the pullback has not been as widespread as it was in 1980 is attested to by the re-election of Obama. In any event, the GOP today is more to the right than it was in 2008. But I venture, it is roughly where it was under Reagan and nowhere near as conservative as it was under Coolidge.

Recently, I had a conversation with a university colleague whom I consider to be thoughtfully and moderately left of center. I proposed to him that we put numbers on my political scale: -10 = extreme left; 0 = center; +10 = extreme right. I asked him to locate the New York Times and Fox News on the scale. He assigned the Times a ‘-3’ and Fox News a ‘+9’. When I indicated to him that my assessment gave the NYT ‘-9’ and Fox ‘+3’, he was absolutely flabbergasted. Motivated by a desire to maintain our friendship, he muted his reaction; but I could tell that he thought I was totally off my rocker. Now my colleague is not a flaming leftist. I see him as perhaps ‘-2.5’ in the spectrum. But he probably sees himself as ‘0’, or perhaps even positive. He is typical of the dramatic shift in the country (and of course in the Democratic Parity), and so finds my assignments completely absurd.

The country has elected, and re-elected the most extreme leftist president in our history. Let me offer just one piece of evidence to support that claim. Wilson, FDR and LBJ were hard left presidents. Yet, I have absolutely no doubt that each was a patriot, who believed in American Exceptionalism and that America was a force for good in the world. Sadly, they also believed that America could do better by adopting their progressive ideas. By contrast, Obama is not a patriot, does not subscribe to American Exceptionalism (as he stated explicitly), has given no evidence that he believes America has been a force for good in the world and has expressed the desire to fundamentally transform the nation. By the latter, he doesn’t mean switching America’s favorite food from burgers to gruyere cheese. He means overthrowing the belief that individual liberty is the prime purpose of the societal structure and replacing it by a statist, collectivist system. The Democratic Party is one hundred percent behind him. The Democratic Party has moved five steps to the left for every step to the right taken by the Republican Party. That this is not completely obvious to all Americans is testimony to the subtle brainwashing the American people have endured and to which they have capitulated over the last 50 years.

This essay also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative

Why It’s Important for Conservatives to Care about Israel

The following is a transcript of a talk given at the Maryland Center-Right Group on June 12, 2014, as well at the Garrett County Women’s GOP Club on September 17, 2014.

I’ll begin with a few words about America, its historical ideals, which, of course, conservatives treasure and seek to preserve; and then I’ll discuss where Israel fits into the scene.

America is the unique nation in world history founded upon an idea. All other nations, current and in the past, came into existence because of one or more of: language, religion, ethnic or racial identity, geographical proximity, population transfer, colonial boundaries, etc. But the US was established based upon an idea – that human beings are meant to live free and the structure of society should be organized so as to foster, protect and maximize individual liberty.

Sadly, at this moment in our nation’s history, liberty in America is under assault – and with an effectiveness that is without precedent. This is a topic with which everyone here is quite familiar. Indeed, it is the reason why conservatives in the United States are so agitated these days. We are bearing witness to a startling deterioration in our freedoms and it has us worried, fearful and struggling to reverse the trend. However, that is not the topic that I wish to address today.

In order to motivate my topic, let me observe that part of the American gestalt regarding liberty is that we not only treasure our own, but we see it as our duty to promote and protect it outside of our borders as well. That obligation is a key part of what we understand as American Exceptionalism. It helps to explain why we fought so vigorously to defeat Nazism and Communism – two of the greatest tyrannical forces ever to menace the planet. In fact, those two were the paramount threats to freedom in the twentieth century and it is to America’s eternal credit that we led the fight to consign them to the ash heap of history. The great menace of Islamism appears to be an analogous threat in the twenty-first century and – so far at least – America’s role in the battle against it has been inconsistent and uncertain, especially in comparison to its previous two heroic struggles – but that too is a topic for another day.

Instead, I come to the main point – Israel. In fact, the tiny nation of Israel is another bastion of freedom in the world – indeed in a part of the world where people have rarely if ever tasted the sweet flavor of human freedom. There was a period, roughly three decades ago, when freedom was on the march around the globe. Countries in Eastern Europe, Asia, Latin America, even Africa were casting off the yoke of tyranny and establishing free societies. Alas, it was a temporary phenomenon, as many have reverted to their former modes. Moreover, even in Western Europe, due to the growing tyranny of a pan continental government, freedom is in retreat. And, as I have observed, the US has not been immune. But Israel, on the other hand, has bucked the trend.

In principle, Israel at its founding was a free country. Of course, the rationale for its existence was very different from that of the US. Its primary raison d’etre is to serve as the revived nation state of the Jewish people – an ethnic nation state, which, ironically, is a concept that has lost favor in the western world. Nevertheless, Israeli society is one that operates under the rule of law, with regular elections, a free press, independent judiciary, and many of the guarantees of individual rights found in our Bill of Rights. It took Israel thirty years to cast off one party rule and another twenty years to abandon its socialist economy. In fact, one can legitimately argue that Israeli society today is more conducive to individual liberty than it has ever been, and it certainly compares favorably to any other democratic state you might cite – including any in Western Europe and even the United States.

But whoa, you might object; what about the matter of its Arab population? That is a legitimate objection, but it is also true that the Arabs of Israel enjoy more individual freedom than is experienced by any citizen in any of the 22 Arab states in the Middle East.

Well, Japan is a free country and the US is bound by treaty to protect it. The 28 nations of NATO are free countries (more or less to varying degrees) and we are treaty bound to protect them. Since the time of the Monroe Doctrine, we have felt obliged to protect the nations of Latin America – and many of them are not free. You would have to go thousands of miles from Jerusalem into Africa or Asia to find another group of free people. Israel is a precious island of freedom in a sea of tyranny, chaos and bloodshed. If we are to remain true to the idea that America is a beacon of freedom to mankind and that we are devoted to nurturing it where it exists or where it is struggling to come into existence, then we have a holy obligation to help the Israelis keep alive the freedoms they enjoy in such a dangerous neighborhood.

The next point may be self-evident, but it is worth making. The threat to freedom in America today comes from within, not from without. We are in no danger of being conquered by Soviet communists or the Chinese military or Islamic Jihadists. The grave danger we face arises from the traitorous intentions of some of our fellow citizens, compounded by the simple-minded ignorance of so many of their neighbors. Unimaginably, the radical left has managed to overrun the cultural institutions of the nation; they now control virtually all of the opinion-molding organs of American society: the media, universities, public education, libraries, seminaries, legal profession, and so on. It took them a century to accomplish this, but they did it. And as is well-known, the flow runs downhill from culture to politics, so it is not surprising that the cultural putsch has resulted in a political revolution – including the capture of the presidency.

Israel struggles to some extent with the same kind of sinister internal forces. But the main threat – indeed an existential threat – to Israel is external. It has two components: Islamic rejection and European anti-Semitism. Regarding the first, from the birth of the Zionist movement a century and a half ago until this day, the Arab world – indeed, the Muslim world – has been and remains unalterably opposed to any kind of Jewish homeland, much less a sovereign Jewish State in the Middle East. Some of this stems from historical anti-Jewish bias in the Muslim world, but the main impetus comes from the Muslim concept of the Ummah: the lands of the Middle East constitute an Ummah, sacred Muslim soil on which no independent, non-Muslim entity may exist. Incidentally, like the deceased Soviet Empire, the Ummah is a constantly expanding, never contracting entity. Thus, Spain was absorbed into the Ummah over a millennium ago; it is a blasphemy against Allah that it escaped, and the Spanish State is viewed by Muslims – when they think about it – as nearly as illegitimate as Israel. In any event, in the Arab/Muslim world, Israel is not only illegitimate; it is an abomination, a violation of the sanctity of the Ummah, a cancer “populated by the descendants of apes and pigs” – if I may cite the words of Obama’s good friend, Mohamed Morsi, former president of Egypt. Israel will never be accepted and like any cancer it must be destroyed.

How’s that for an attitude common to all your neighbors! Alas, that is only one-half of the threat. The other half is that of European-inspired, albeit world-wide anti-Semitism; good old-fashioned Jew hatred. Tomes have been written about the phenomenon of anti-Semitism, its origins, its causes, its manifestations. Let me just remark sorrowfully that, less than 70 years since European anti-Semitism led to the horror of the Holocaust, the systematic murder of one-third of world Jewry; less than 70 years since the liberation of the last death camp, this deadly virus is back and, as before, has its headquarters in the societies of Western Europe. However, whereas in the past the Jewish people were dispersed around the globe, today 80% of world Jewry is found in two places: Israel and the United States. For the moment, the attention of the world’s anti-Semites is focused almost exclusively on Israel. Its manifestations include: vile accusations, biased journalism, incipient boycotts and disinvestment movements, occasional small-scale deadly attacks on Jews or Israelis in Europe (as has happened recently in Bulgaria, France and Belgium), and finally rampant support for Arab/Muslim efforts to delegitimize and ultimately destroy the Jewish State. From a purely physical standpoint, Israel is able to defend itself against European anti-Semitism – I venture that the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) could defeat a NATO force that lacked American participation. But when combined with the threat from Iran and the rest of the Muslim world, European anti-Semitism does magnify significantly the danger level that Israel confronts.

Therefore, in summary, although the nature of the threat to freedom in Israel is different from the type of threat that faces us, the threat to Israel’s freedom is very real. Once again, if the US is to be true to its values and its history, then we are duty bound to come to the aid of the beleaguered Jewish State.

I will next present two sets of points addressed specifically to the title of the talk, and then conclude with a perhaps unusual comparison of a key aspect of Israeli and American societies. The two sets are: (i) Why the issue of American defense of Israel is particularly a conservative issue; and (ii) what specific steps America can take in defense of Israel.

First, why should conservatives care about Israel and its threatened freedom?

  1. As we’ve seen, the left in America cares far more about equality than liberty. Well if the left is not troubled by the loss of freedom in America, do you really expect it to care about the liberty of a bunch of Middle Eastern Jews? And in fact, we have seen increasing hostility toward Israel expressed by America’s leftists. Obama is exhibit 1 in this regard. The responsibility passes to conservatives in the US to uphold the ideal of American Exceptionalism in general and the support of free countries, like Israel, in particular.
  2. Another historical aspect of American society that finds little favor on the left is traditional culture, including strong morals infused by a religious foundation. The notion of an ethnic nation state founded as a haven for a tiny religious community doesn’t really rank high on the left’s list of important ideals. Once again, it falls to conservatives to uphold the Jewish State – i.e., the state one of whose key components is the religion that gave birth to the religion that does – or at least did – undergird much of the morals that guide (or guided) our country.
  3. Conservatives often refer to the miraculous nature of the founding of America. This was perhaps expressed most eloquently by President Reagan when he said: “I’ve always believed that this land was placed here between the two great oceans by some divine plan. That it was placed here to be found by a special kind of people – people who had a special love for freedom and who had the courage to uproot themselves and leave hearth and homeland, and come to what, in the beginning, was the most undeveloped wilderness possible.” Indeed the miracles implicit in Reagan’s words were and have been concrete: for example, that we won the Revolutionary War – a dicey proposition that; that we were able to overcome the crippling monetary problems that followed independence; that we survived the Civil War; that we were able to defeat 20th century totalitarianism; that we have managed to create arguably the most robust, tolerant and peaceful multi-ethnic nation in the history of the world. All of this is miraculous. But perhaps not as miraculous as the reconstitution of an ancient people, homeless and persecuted for two thousand years, said reincarnation being accompanied by the rebirth of its ancient language, essentially not spoken for two millennia, and involving the absorption of millions of destitute immigrant brethren from around the world – all of it resulting in a free, strong and prosperous modern nation – Israel. Now that’s a miracle. Conservatives, especially those of faith, should identify with this miraculous story and help to see that it retains its storybook vitality.
  4. Finally, we often bemoan the irresponsible behavior of our European cousins – behavior that is usually encouraged by our liberal siblings in America. We rue their unwillingness to defend themselves and how they often cuddle up to unsavory characters who threaten their freedom (Vladimir Putin, for example). By actively supporting Israel, we send the Europeans a clear message that their anti-Semitism is unacceptable and their overall irresponsible behavior is self-defeating and dangerous to liberty. American liberals won’t send that message; once again, it falls to conservatives to do so.

Next, I would like to outline just a few concrete steps America could take to help defend Israel. Conservatives should be advocating these steps.

  1. First and most obvious, political support in world forums. These include combatting anti-Israel UN resolutions, warnings to states that threaten Israel, agreements with Israel on bilateral issues, and enabling closer cooperation between Israel and America and its allies.
  2. Military support. No one is suggesting that American troops need be deployed to Israel, but America should ensure that Israel is supplied with the most advanced weaponry and that it maintains its qualitative edge over its Arab enemies.
  3. Maintain American vigilance in the long battle against jihadism and radical Islam.
  4. Drop the even-handed nonsense and give Israel the full-blown political support that it deserves. The Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular are not democrats, not free marketeers, not lovers of liberty. We should put our mouth where our values are and cut out the politically correct phony evenhandedness.
  5. Move the US Embassy to Jerusalem.
  6. Regarding the futile and never-ending so-called Middle East Peace Process, support the resolution of it that is advocated by Caroline Glick in her new book: “The Israeli Solution: A One State Plan for Peace in the Middle East.” Any further words here on the book and its ideas would take us too far astray, but listeners are recommended strongly to read Glick’s book. [See also my essay.] It contains a trenchant analysis of how America, in its pursuit and sponsorship of the fatally flawed Middle East Peace Process, is basically repeating the exact same mistakes that Britain made in trying to administer the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
  7. Fight anti-Semitism in all its manifestations in all locales where it rears its ugly head.
  8. Our dependence on Middle Eastern oil is declining. We should adjust our Middle East policies accordingly.
  9. At least consider the idea of a defense treaty with Israel. This is admittedly a tricky proposition. But we are treaty bound to defend Formosa. Is that island more important to us than Israel?
  10. Finally, get rid of Obama and all the other leftists – whose back-stabbing of Israel is only one of the many harms they are perpetrating on the US of A.

Here is my final idea – the one, which I suggested earlier, that you might find a bit unusual. The US and Israel are both what I would call “biblical societies” – in the following sense. The Bible, the Old Testament represents a deal that the ancient Israelis made with God more than three thousand years ago – a deal which, incidentally, they viewed as binding on their descendants. The Jews would obey all of God’s mitzvot, i.e., commandments and in so doing bring holiness to the world and be a light unto the nations, thus serving God’s purpose of having mankind perfect the world. In return God would make the Jews a great nation that would enjoy peace and prosperity. Arguably, neither side has kept his end of the bargain very well.

America has trod a similar path. Namely, a quarter millennium ago, the young Americans made a deal with themselves – a deal that they also viewed as binding on their descendants. The Bible in this case was the Constitution. The people pledged to live according to the rules set forth in the sacred document. In return they would receive lives of peace, freedom, prosperity and moral honor. They and their children would continue to know the blessing of freedom. We did a fairly good job of honoring the deal for a long time. But now we are in the process of abrogating it.

There is a theory that in spite of the fact that most Jews throughout history have failed to keep up their end of the bargain with God, there has always been a saving remnant (usually found among so-called Orthodox Jews) that followed the rules. It is because of the saving remnant that, in spite of repeated severe punishments, which He has allowed to befall the Jewish people, God still considers the deal to be in force. That explains why He has permitted the Jews to continue to exist for lo these many millennia.

Well, American conservatives are the United States’ saving remnant. It is our job to remain faithful to the deal, to uphold the rules in the Constitution and to lead America back to the biblical arrangement made by our Founders.