Rabbi ,
I would not mind offering a parallel definition of conservatism, but in the hopes of dialog, I’d like to refine your definition of liberalism first.
I have always thought of myself as a liberal. I came to this country when I was 14, loved candidate John F. Kennedy, stuffed envelopes for his brother Teddy in San Francisco, and like many others of my generation was devastated by his assassination. I marched on Washington against the war in Vietnam, and decided to become a Rabbi as an honorable way to avoid the draft.
To me, liberalism is the human impulse to good. Tikun Olam. We see the suffering of others, we learn Marx in college, and we actively participate in the grape boycott with Cesar Chaves. Being Latino immigrants, we treasure our new fatherland, being a survivor of the Shoah, and having experienced the anti-Semitism of Argentina, we love the USA, its freedom and its endless opportunity.
This family and personal background is to give you an idea that liberalism was ingrained in my blood, trained in my brain during my career at Berkeley in the early sixties and fostered by our common rabbinic training.
Liberalism is Tikun Olam, the drive to help the poor, to provide for the widows and orphans as taught by our religion. I don’t see it, as you seem to define it, as having to do with freedom. It has to do with making the world better, freedom, we hope, is just a part of that journey.
You seem to take a dry, philosophic attitude towards the definition. I see it as a vibrant drive that motivates our youth, raises our aspirations, and has as its basis “Make the world Better.”
We look around the world and discover inequality. Why should the poor struggle while the rich play? Why should we not give the poor a hand, provide for them from the riches of our land, and ease their struggle for subsistence? Liberals find inequality offensive. How many billions does it take to have enough (the words of our president in the past two weeks.) In all, who could be opposed to Tikun Olam? Who would not wish for equality, for each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?
Given this background I would define liberalism as follows:
A. The Promise – To make the world a better and fairer place by eliminating inequity and fostering good will.
B. On the Economic Front: Eliminating inequity means
a. that no one is denied the fruits of his labor by insufficient pay
b. that no one is condemned to penury through events beyond his control
c. that everyone is guaranteed a minimum lifestyle commensurate with human dignity.
C. On the Social Front: Eliminating inequity means
a. That no one is ostracized for the color of his skin, his religion, his sexual orientation, his accent when he speaks.
b. We look for those items we have so far overlooked (perhaps body weight, perhaps being a blond, etc.) and are constantly on the lookout for inequalities not yet noticed.
Tikun Olam also means noticing things that are bad for people, and working towards improving them. For example eliminating sugar from schools, eliminating tobacco and smoking, promoting exercise, etc. I am not quite sure these are either economic or social, but they are part of the liberal creed.
--------- Continued a few days later
Having given you a précis of why I was a liberal, let me contrast this to what I believe a conservative is. Keep in mind that I am talking not about left wing extremists who want to overthrow the government, or right wing extremist who want to purify America into an all white, protestant nation. I am talking about altruistic Americans, or members of any nation, who proceed from sincerity and moral beliefs.
All such conservatives, in my opinion, are liberals at heart, but liberals are not all conservative. We share the wish to make the world better (tikun olam) we also wish to eliminate inequity, and all that it means. We do add, however, a couple of additional parameters.
1. We don’t trust government. History and experience have taught us that government can screw up most of what it undertakes, that Bureaucracies tend perpetuate themselves and change the goals for which they were created. We therefore are very careful and support as small a government as possible.
2. We do arithmetic more than liberals. This does not mean liberals don’t count, but they tend to deal with generalities, and not take into account how much they cost. This again tends to make us opposed to large governments.
3. We believe in individual freedom to a greater extent than liberals.
This week Rand Paul was interviewed by Rachel Maddow. (http://www.businessinsider.com/watch-the-rachel-maddow-rand-paul-interview-that-reportedly-got-half-a-million-views-online-in-24-hours-2010-5 ) . The argument centered on whether or not the government should be able to tell private owners of commercial enterprises who they can serve. Paul, being a libertarian, maintained that this should not be the case. Individuals should be granted the widest possible freedoms of association and in their ability to do business. They should be unfettered.
I mostly agree with this view. I believe the 1964 Civil rights law (including chapter 10) was needed, because of the wide spread and contagious nature of racial prejudice. This does not mean I like it (although in my youth, I really did like it and demonstrated for it and struggled to get it passed!).
The result of that law, and of similar laws passed for similar motives, is that we now try to control what people eat, smoke, marry, and the list goes on. Examples are:
a. Restricting fast food establishments in South East Central LA
b. Trying to pass laws to prevent McDonald’s from giving toys to children
c. Trying to redefine marriage to include homosexual relationships.
d. Making smoking on beaches against the law.
These are all part of the drive for justice, for equity and for Tikun Olam.
Civil rights responded to blacks being prevented from integrating into white society, homosexual marriage responds to heterosexual definition of marriage, and peoples religious response to this definition. Food restrictions are for the good of the people whose food intake is being restricted. Making life difficult for smokers is intended to help them get over their addiction.
Spiderman keeps stating a mantra that with “Great Power Comes Great Responsibility,” which is similar to what my generation learned in school and at home, that with freedom comes responsibility.
If you wish freedom you have to respect the fact that the government ( or God) won’t interfere with your affairs. And that evil can happen to good people.
Liberals and conservatives vary in the value they place on these interrelated human needs. Liberals stress security, conservatives stress freedom.
I am sure I have opened up a large can of worms with this message. I hope you respond and we can explore where and how we differ as examples of “liberal” and “conservative” Jews.
Leon
No comments:
Post a Comment