Republicans as Socialists?

Last Thursday morning as I lay in bed looking at the rain coming steadily down on the window pane I thought of Mitt. He’s narrowing the gap. Good for him. In Iowa a full 75% of the Republican voters chose someone else but in New Hampshire it was only 63%. By any measure (“A victory is a victory” he said after winning Iowa by eight votes) this is progress. Whether it’s juggernaut progress remains to be seen. South Carolina looms, though observant Jews are excluded. Its primary is being held tomorrow, on Shabbat. But there’s hope for Jewish participation. The obnoxiously wealthy among us can still try to buy their favorites a few delegates.

Sheldon Adelson, one of the multi-zillionaires, has pledged $5,000,000 to help Newt Gingrich’s Super Pac run anti-Romney ads that would make a socialist proud. For nearly half an hour viewers see how Romney’s Bain Capital would buy up ailing companies, strip them of any latent and residual value, and then through a process of financial reverse peristalsis throw the workers onto the street. It’s capitalism at its worst, Republicans (REPUBLICANS, for crying out loud!) are charging. “You have to ask the question, is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of people and then walk off with the money?” Gingrich asked, ignoring the fact that Adelson is bankrolling him. Griffin Perry, son of Texas Governor Rick Perry, got snide: “Mitt Romney knows how to lead ... Lead people straight out the door with a pink slip.” Père Perry was not shy about entering the verbal jousting contest either. “I am as much of a capitalist and have a record to prove it … by helping create over a million jobs in the state of Texas,” he said in an interview on Fox. “But there’s a real difference between venture capitalism and vulture capitalism, and that’s what we’re talking about here.”

Matt Brooks, the director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, isn’t bothered by the attacks. “At some point it’s fairly obvious that the Obama campaign would have raised this issue anyway,” Brooks said. “I’m not sure they’re happy that it’s been taken away from them and is not on their terms.” Matt, you disingenuous spin doctor, of course Democrats are happy, though thrilled may be a better word. It’s usually the job of the Vice Presidential candidate to smear the opposition. Now Joe Biden, the presumptive candidate, will only have to quote Republicans, giving that much more credibility to the anti-Romney barrage. This piling on Mitt will end only when Romney’s finally nominated in August, but as Saul Ricklin, a local contributor to the New York Times letters section wrote, “I can hardly wait for the coming hilarity of hearing all the Republican candidates now denigrating Mitt Romney start to laud him as what this country needs as a president if and when he wins the nomination.” Me, too, Saul, me too.

Of course Romney has his own Jewish money baggers including Mel Sembler, the Florida shopping center magnate, and Fred Zeidman, a Texas lawyer. And so the money flows. At least these guys aren’t also trying to determine Israeli politics the way Adelson does. He’s a major backer of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, pouring money into his coffers as well. Well, I suppose that if I’d made my millions by luring people to Las Vegas so they could lose their money in glitzy, gilded, gaucheness while fondling show girls I’d want to make sure my ideas, obviously sanctified by a Higher Power as I’m so successful, become the laws of the lands.

You’ll note, of course that this Republican brouhaha is about capitalism. Romney of the unbridled kind, Gingrich and Perry who would rein it in. But let’s take a look at the founder of capitalism, Adam Smith (1723-1790). His most famous book is the Wealth of Nations which advocates an unregulated market-driven economy. But Smith wasn’t talking about Bain Capital getting wealthy but of the nation. He was as much a moralist as he was an economist. He believed that labor is what gave things value. A cotton seed is worth nothing, but apply labor and eventually you get a shirt. A Jewish economist of the same era, David Ricardo (1772-1823) took this point and extended it. Only labor gives things value. Are Republicans finally giving credence to this perspective which has been with us since the dawn of capitalism? Probably not. Mitt’s got it sewed up so the Bain Capital model will likely be the United States’ given a Romney victory in November. Ah well, people like labor saving devices. But maybe they don’t like labor destroying financial devices as much. We’ll see.

The Truth Can Hurt

There are times when the truth hurts—not the subject of the statement but the maker of it. Two recent examples, one from a Republican, the other from a Democrat:

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (he’s the Republican) said that Palestinians are an invented people (and as such have no legitimate territorial ambitions). His actual words were: “Remember there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places. And for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940’s, and I think it’s tragic.” He later asked rhetorically in defense of his remarks: “Is what I said factually correct? Yes. Is it historically true? Yes. We are in a situation where every day rockets are fired into Israel while the United States—the current administration—tries to pressure the Israelis into a peace process. Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth,” he continued. “These people are terrorists, they teach terrorism in their schools.”

This was a fine opening for his Republican challengers. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said, “That’s just stirring up trouble.” Mitt Romney, who currently (December 16) stands second or third in polls, said he agreed with Gingrich’s comments about Palestinian terrorism, but that Gingrich went too far in publicly questioning Palestinian peoplehood. “I happen to agree with most of what the Speaker said,” Romney responded. “Except by going and saying that the Palestinians are an invented people. That I think was a mistake on the Speaker’s part.” Romney warned against throwing “incendiary words into a place which is a boiling pot” and that doing so could make things harder for Israel. Rick Santorum, agreed with Romney’s comments.

You’ll note that none of these gentlemen denied the truth of what Gingrich had said, only that he shouldn’t have said it. Even Gingrich seemed to acknowledge this as his campaign later issued a statement stressing that despite his comments on Palestinian peoplehood, he still favors the eventual creation of a Palestinian state. “Newt Gingrich supports a negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, which will necessarily include agreement between Israel and the Palestinians over the borders of a Palestinian state,” they intoned. Remember when Republicans made hay over John Kerry’s “I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it” sound bite?

I began by saying that Gingrich was speaking truth; the Palestinians are an invented people. But so are we all. I’m American, my paternal ancestors emigrated from Russia; my maternal ancestors from Austria-Hungary. Before that, I have no idea. But I (and my Italo-American and Polish-American and Hispanic-American and Afro-American friends are all now Americans, proudly). Arabs who trace their ancestry to grandparents and beyond who lived in the Ottoman Empire have the same right to call themselves whatever they want, even if it gives them a political advantage.

The other truth teller was The American Ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman. He delivered a speech at an event hosted by the European Jewish Union in Brussels in which he noted “the problem within Europe of tension, hatred and sometimes even violence between some members of Muslim communities or Arab immigrant groups and Jews is largely born of and reflecting the tension between Israel, the Palestinian Territories and neighboring Arab states in the Middle East over the continuing Israeli-Palestinian problem.” Advancing peace between Israel and its neighbors was the key to addressing this issue, he said.

Jewish groups condemned the statement as one sided. In response, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said that the views expressed by Gutman were the envoy’s and not the administration’s. Gutman has said that his remarks were “misinterpreted” and that he condemns all forms of anti-Semitism.

Tempest in a teapot? Seems like it to me. The man spoke truth. Let’s pretend that there was no Zionist movement, no Balfour Declaration, that after the First World War the Ottoman empire was carved up with what we call Israel not intended as a Jewish Homeland but an Arab one, and that since 1919 it’s been Arab. Would Muslims in Europe be acting in an anti-Semitic fashion? I don’t see it. They can’t win their war in the Middle East so they take their frustrations out on Jews in France, England, Germany and the Netherlands. Gutman was right, his Jewish critics wrong. But apparently he shouldn’t have said it.

The Republican Games

I don’t normally think of myself as being particularly sadistic, I’m not the sort of guy who rues missing the opportunity to cheer on gladiators going at each other to the death, but let’s face it—who doesn’t love the way the Republicans are behaving in the pre-caucus, pre-primary phase of their blood sport. They all want to unseat President Obama, and none are willing to raise a penny in taxes to help resolve the debt brought about by the Bush tax cuts and unfunded wars. All believe in cutting off their noses to spite their faces. For example, when asked at a recent debate if they would be willing to increase taxes by a dollar in return for spending cuts of ten dollars, there was a universal response—none would. But after those areas of agreement, it’s strop the razor, hone the machete, sharpen the tongue and praise Jesus. (Mitt Romney is a bit behind on the praise Jesus part, though as a Mormon he does believe in three gods, one of whom is the aforementioned gentleman from Nazareth.)

Romney has always been the pace setter, the one the others are trying to dethrone. One by one they rise up against him and one by one they fall by the wayside. I write this on December 2 so don’t know how things will be on the 9th, but I can report with certitude that today Newt Gingrich is the current first tier challenger, having replaced Herman Cain who previously had edged aside Rick Perry who’d steamrollered over Michele Bachmann. At this pace, poor Rick Santorum, who is universally ignored, might just emerge as the next great white hope to defeat Romney. Tim Pawlenty may have dropped out too soon. And Sarah Palin, too. Even she might have had a decent run at Romney before going down in flames against Obama. It’s all too wondrous to behold. Like watching gladiators. As is said about fox hunting, enjoying this is as indefensible, but irresistible.

And what does all this mean to the Jews? Well, on the one hand nothing more than to gentiles, but there is the Israel question now. Yes, all are passionate about the survival of the Jewish State but Ron Paul, who is opposed to spending any money unless it can be justified by the standards of the eighteenth century, opposes foreign aid altogether and Rick Perry, in what seems by comparison to be a more moderate view has come out with the idea that in any decision on foreign aid he would start at zero dollars and “then we'll have a conversation in this country about whether or not a penny of our taxpayer dollar needs to go into those countries.” Gingrich immediately signed on. The former House Speaker who looks fondly back on his suicidal shutting down of the Federal Government in 1995-’96 said the idea “made absolutely perfect sense.” Off camera Perry latter waffled, a technique he learned from Romney. “Obviously,” he said, “Israel is a special ally. And my bet is that we would be funding them at some substantial level. But it makes sense for everyone to come in at zero and make your case.” Time to bring out the maple syrup. Oh, and save some of that Aunt Jemima’s for Romney whose spokesmen announced immediately after the debate that he would exempt Israel from the policy.

What Perry seems to have forgotten (or never knew about) is a ten year Memorandum of Understanding that governs US-Israel funding levels, signed in 2007 providing for long-term assurances guaranteeing Israel both financial assurances and political support. So, while reneging on international promises is not unheard of, no Republican, whether Perry or any other GOP candidates in unison with him, would start with zero dollars for Israel; and if not for Israel, than probably not for other countries in the Middle East, all of which would look askance at America supporting the Jewish State to the exclusion of their own. Well, it sounds fiscally conservative anyway, if undoable (like much fiscal conservatism).

So, as Republicans vie with each other uttering “morituri te salutant” their razors stropped, their machetes honed, their tongues sharpened, their minds numbed (Oops, I shouldn’t have said that) how will Evangelical Republicans or Orthodox Jews, those bastions of the Republican Party, feel when Gingrich is brought low and they are ultimately forced to choose between voting for Obama or for a tritheist? Who can say? We can only sit back and enjoy the spectacle. Let the games continue!

More foolishness on the founders scene

Does anyone read the Constitution anymore? I mean, yes it has embarrassing elements (Article 4, Section 2, clause 3 allowing vigilantes from the South to come up North to retrieve run-away slaves comes to mind immediately. But we got rid of that one. It cost us a Civil War with 620,000 deaths, but we got rid of it.) But there are some gems. I particularly like the phrase in Article 6 that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Many of the framers then went on to sit in the first Congress which passed and sent around to the states a dozen amendments for ratification including one that contains this little piece: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Which brings me to David Barton. He belongs to that school of unprofessional historians known as Christian polemicists. At a recent conference on church-state relations held at Roger Williams University (full disclosure – I organized the conference) Professor Matt McCook of Oklahoma Christian University (which I do not believe is a hotbed of radical leftists) defines Christian polemicists as suspicious of professional historians whom they believe make too much of the Enlightenment and deny the fundamental Christian beliefs of the Founding Fathers. Instead this group argues that the founders were devout Christians who wanted to create the United States as a Christian nation. Other conferees took it as a given that the founders, even if some were religious, did not want to make America a Christian nation and one pointed out that the Constitution is godless (in that God is not mentioned at all).

Barton, according to a recent story in The New York Times (May 5), has been consulted by several potential Republican presidential candidates, including Mike Huckabee who extols Barton as “maybe the greatest living historian on the spiritual nature of America’s early days,” Newt Gingrich, who believes that “American freedoms are divinely granted,” and Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann. All praise his work dedicated to the argument that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and is on the road to ruin because we have forgotten this and abolished prayer in school.
As do all of his kind, Barton has a problem with Thomas Jefferson’s argument in his famous 1802 letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association which called for a wall of separation between church and state, the basis (along with actual words of the Constitution) of the principle that there should be a wall of separation between church and state. According to Barton, Jefferson’s “wall” was meant only to protect religion from the state, not the other way around. It was intended to keep “Christian principles in government,” not prevent religion in the public sphere. Sadly, there’s nothing in Jefferson’s letter or in his life to substantiate this. Jefferson was an atheist, convinced that within a generation all Americans would be Unitarians (another way of denying Jesus’ divinity).

At the Roger Williams conference mention was several times made of different tiers of founders. There were those who participated in the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and those who didn’t. Patrick Henry is an example of the latter. He was a devout Christian who advocated taxation to support religion, and limiting public office to Trinitarian Protestants. But the people who actually wrote the documents that define America rejected Henry’s ideas.

Even ignoring the fact that Barton twice spoke before neo-Nazi groups (he claimed not to know they were neo-Nazis) his distortions ought to offend Christians and Jews (and Muslims and atheists). America’s radical departure into modernity was acting upon what it learned from Europe – to separate church and state. When the state creates a preferred religion, the state will be engulfed in civil war, learning will be stifled, dissenters will be jailed (or worse) and society will stagnate.

God gave the United States a nonsectarian Constitution – I know because Newt Gingrich tells me so. But if we allow the David Bartons of this world, based on cherry-picked quotations and a misreading of the past, to convince us that America was intended to be a Christian nation, America will not be strengthened; it will be destroyed.