Jews Should NOT be Liberals!

There's an old joke: For every five Jews in a room there are ten opinions.  While this is funny, it's actually based on an important truth:  the Talmudic Dialectic. 

Under this principle of study, students and philosophers look at all sides of moral issues before implementing or judging anything.  Hebrew schools even today will bring up moral issues and alternately assign a student to defend both "pro" and "con."   Maybe this is why there are so many good Jewish lawyers and judges!

As a Jewish boy, I, too learned to see and examine the many sides of  issues.  This really helped when I was on the high school's debate team!

My parents both survived the Holocaust.  Their own and their friends' stories taught me to distrust government heavy-handedness.  I became aware of freedom's benefits, and sensitive to barriers to it.  The controls instituted "for our own good" rarely were. 

The Holocaust is in the media even more now: movies, even a miniseries.  These focus on personal stories of tragedy and triumph.  But we really mustn't forget the wider reality of why it all happened...  Because the same thing could easily be starting here.  Our own country could be heading on that same road to totalitarianism -- and it's nice, well-intentioned people who are driving, many of them Jews!

How can I say this, especially when so many fellow Jews are well-meaning, loving people?   Because I see many Jews calling themselves liberals.  They look at need, and want to fill it, but do not consider the other side - where the money or items to fill those needs are taken from.  Not just what "good" is being served, but also at what cost and to whom.

As a high-school kid, I would wince as one of our relatives defended a "need" for more governmental action: "Why, Sam and I are liberals..." she would claim.  This in itself did not validate a one-sided view of the issue.  Even then, I knew she was ignoring one thing: Where does government get the money and benefits?

"Star Trek's" Mr. Spock once said: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."  Noble sounding, but it's bunk!  Jewish law teaches the importance of the individual.  We are all equally precious to God. 

My group's needs don't grant us a right to confiscate your money or rights, even if I get the government to do it for me!

This kind of thinking, liberalism, forgets to look at another side of this "giving."  The Ten Commandments say "Thou shalt not steal."  It doesn't mention a magic number of people whose needs give them a special right to take things from others.  It does not say a government can take things from others, keep a cut, then dole out the rest to your favorite group.  It does not say if someone has achieved a level of success or wealth that he becomes "rich" and is now a legitimate target to have his goods redistributed to those less successful.

The liberals do have a well-intended assumption they believe validates their actions.  This is that there is a wise, benevolent elite, either in government or with access to government.  They trust this elite to act for the "greater good," to benevolently dictate which of your own goods, property or rights may be taken away and apportioned to another group of "needy" or "victims."  But, when one looks at the source of this enforced charity, it seems much less benevolent.

Karl Marx was a liberal Jew.  He meant well for the working masses.  But look at the suffering his one-sided philosophy brings!  Looking only at needs ignores the other side of the equation:  How will these needs be filled and by what right?

The liberal movement, ironically, has its roots in Europe.  It originated as a champion of individual rights - all people's rights.  However, it evolved to champion use of sweeping governmental powers to "redistribute" wealth and welfare.  How is this process any different from stealing?  What moral basis would support taking anyoneës legal property?   Isn't that just theft, no matter how well intentioned?

In the  U.S., we have a process designed to protect us from such misuse of power: the balance of powers in the Constitution.  The danger is, to enable the liberals' give and take, they must ignore the Constitution's restrictions on government.  They must think of it as being a "living" document.  This just means the Constitution says whatever the wise elite says it means.   The problem is, in other countries this thinking has unleashed uncontrolled power and mass suffering.

Ruling by situational ethics is very dangerous if we want to avoid the horrors of the past.  The worst mass-murderers were powerful governments, killing their own people.  They stole, tortured, experimented and murdered in the name of a greater good.  They were also unimpeded because their constitution was also "living."  

Remember, just a few years ago, a small holocaust happened in Waco, Texas.  It was enabled by well intentioned people.  All they did was reinterpret "living" laws previously preventing the use of the military against fellow citizens.  They just looked at what was needed... "for the children," of course.  We all saw what happened to both those parents and those children.  Were they "saved?"  Whose rights were protected in the end?

That precedent has now been set, so another protection has disappeared "for the greater good."   Now, it can be any of us surrounded by gas-spewing tanks.  All thatís required is a "need."

When you enlist the aid of government to do favors, you have created a small but ever-growing monster.  Remember, government cannot create the goods it hands out. It must confiscate, tax, and take its own cut.  Finally it hands out what crumbs are left to the "needy."  Few if any are helped; more and more are hurt each time.

For Jews, the basic error in this form of "helping" is that it ignores the Talmudic tradition.  It only looks at one side:  Whose needs outweigh our own right to keep what we earned?  Let's consider the other side, where the funds, property or rights come from:  the peaceful, productive majority. 

Doesn't taking what's not yours, even by a majority acting through government, violate "Thou Shalt Not Steal?"  Isn't it also inconsistent with Hillel's hierarchy of charity, which at every level must be voluntary? 

Remember, Nazism was National Socialism.  It purported to use the force of government to right certain wrongs; to create an even playing field.  If some groups were hurt along the way, it was sad, but necessary for the greater good and a brighter future.  The end justified the means.  A few had to suffer to benefit the many.

The sad and painful result of Hitler's regime proved one thing:  Government cannot favor one group without trampling on others, even if it starts out treading lightly.

It is evil to take, even if later giving away what was taken.  Seeing this fallacy is being true to the Talmudic dialectic.

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and even Janet Reno proved the same thing:  There is no greater good than the welfare of each and every individual.  If a group gets especially good or harsh treatment, all suffer.  If every person is equally respected, and also their property, we are all better off.

As George Washington said, "Government is force, nothing more."  Involving government takes a good deed out of the realm of charity and makes it enforced theft.  It devolves government from the rule of law by "we, the people," to rule by access to government, expediency and threat.

What is a right way to help?  Under Jewish teaching, it's a <mitzvah> for you, yourself, to voluntarily come to the aid of someone you see needs help.  It's also good to convince others to join you, to start a fund or a support group. 

Hillel says the best charity is done gently, so the recipient doesn't even know it was charity, let alone where it came from.   This is not served when congressmen thump their chest for giving away others' money to a cause, however noble it is.

Every individual's rights, welfare and property must be treated equally, without invoking special powers to take from one to help another.  Only then will we have a fair and just society, set on the right and best path. 

Above all, doesn't Jewish teaching say we are all equally precious in God's eyes?