The Light's Out in this City

Today while skimming Facebook I found the following meme linked by FreedomWorks:

 

 

The metaphor, made popular by President Reagan at the 1976 Republican National Convention, was pulled by the former leader of the free world from a sermon made by Puritan Governor John Winthrop, who quoted the following verses from the New Testament book of Matthew:

"You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house."
 

A powerful teaching, Conservatives have run with Reagan's quoted message, turning it into the mantra for American perfection and a clarion call to voters every four years since 1980.  I am not one of them.

The easy cop-out for most Reagan-quoters at this point is to bring up the ancient question of "dual loyalty" implying that I, as a Jew, somehow feel a conflicted loyalty between America and Israel.  As with any stereotype, the assumption of conflicted allegiance is just plain wrong.  But, the fact that I am Jewish informs my reasoning as to why the "Shining city upon a hill" metaphor is as abused as it is used in the political right wing.

How so, you ask?  Let's start with the source.  Most Jews have the chutzpa to admit that Jesus was, indeed, a Jewish guy.  (An Israeli living in Roman-occupied territory if you'd like to get political.)  So, being a Jewish guy, he spoke like a Jew to other Jews (all called "Jew" and "Jews" from the territorial name "Yehudah" Romanized down to "Judah"..."Ju"..."Jew"...a-ha!), Matthew 5:14-16 being no exception.  The "light of the world" metaphor in verse 14 comes from Isaiah 49:6, "...I will make you a light of nations, so that My salvation shall be until the end of the earth."  Moving onto the mountain metaphor, Jesus could be referencing the patriarch Abraham who infamously chose the challenge of the mountainous path (as opposed to his cousin, Lot, who chose the valley) only to be tested with the potential sacrifice of his son, Isaac, on Mount Moriah - contended by some to be the ancient location of what would become Jerusalem, the Biblical "shining city on a hill".

In the context of Matthew, Jesus was instructing his audience of Jews on the mountain to do exactly what Jews since Abraham have been doing: To lead by example.  To rise above the horrific behavior of the world around them and set an example, illustrating that people can "turn the other cheek" (to quote from the same passage) care for one another and live in peace. 

2,000 years later, more than a few world leaders have abused this Jewish teaching for their own personal benefit - and I fear that is what is happening again.  While I can't define Reagan's intentions behind the quoting of this verse in the context of American identity (and don't seek to accuse him of nefarious purposes) I can clearly see the arrogant nature behind the metaphor's current use, and it saddens me.  My Jewish soul tells me that words meant to harken an ancient, definitive calling to selfless service were not meant to be used in an expression of arrogance or pride.  Which is exactly what this metaphor has become in the minds and voices of too many Americans, disenchanted with the disenfranchised attitude of the Left.

The idea behind being a "shining city on a hill" is to stand as an example to others, of service and sacrifice; of hard work and sincere effort; of a desire to provide a helping hand; of the willingness to be the bigger person for the sake of the common good.  Too little of that is talked about in the pomp and circumstance of political power.  Because of that, the true message of being a "shining city on a hill" has given way to the idea of a super-nationalism that has America being fashioned as a great and singular world power that should be idolized (not learned from) and even worshipped as the "greatest nation on the earth."

Isaiah 49:6 begins with the word "I".  This is HaShem (God) talking to Israel: "I will make you a light."  The lesson in being a light - having the willingness to stand alone in order to set an example - is that standing alone does not necessitate the pompous attitude of superiority as much as it demands the attitude of a servant devoted to a higher calling.  The time for American imperialism is over; if conservatives want America to anywhere near represent a "shining city on a hill" they need to shelve their pride and focus on re-making America into what it once was: a nation of freedom-lovers who valued humility more than glib remarks and cheap political gain.

Comparatively Speaking...

You've heard all about it.  It's all over the usual lefty outlets, both Jewish and non: Mitt Romney hates kibbutzim.

While the Forward reported it as "Mitt Slams the Kibbutz", the LA Times elected to go for a softer headline ("Contrasting joy of individual action, Romney finds ... the kibbutz?") only to open their critique by asserting that Republicans hate collectives and Mitt Romney stupidly elected to reference a collective form of living located in the world's foremost political hotbed.  Because, as we all know, Romney's out to pick on those Israeli Jews -- usually demonized by the same left-wing media that seems to now suddenly feel bad for them, because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"...right?  Wait a second...

What Romney actually said was, “America is not a collective where we all work in a kibbutz or we’re all in some little entity, instead it’s individuals pursuing their dreams and building successful enterprises which employ others and they become inspired as they see what has happened in the place they work and go off and start their own enterprises..."

And he's right.  America isn't a kibbutz or a collective of any kind.  So... where's the insult in this?

And therein lies the rub.  The same leftists who don't want to be compared to anyone, who constantly argue for equality in all forms, are also the same folks who consistently look at the world through a comparative lens.  Go figure: Marx's entire theory is based on the idea that one group somehow has it better than another.  In this case, Leftists clamoring for an argument in an election season accuse Mitt Romney of asserting that Americans have it better because they are free to do as they please, instead of being beholden to the needs and desires of the larger group.  In the left-wing mindset, this comparison has a default meaning: When an individual's desires take priority over those of the community, the individual is just some sick, sad, corrupt bastard looking to profit off the suffering of others.

I guess that's why all those illegals are flooding across our borders year after year; so they can be used and abused by evil individualists.  All those legal immigrants who work and save for years to bring their families to America for better educational and employment opportunities are just slaves to the individualist machine.  They'd be so much better off living in countries where they're judged by their economic class, race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.  

Wait a second.  I thought only "rugged individualists" (as the LA Times likes to call them) are the ones judging folks by all those superficial criteria.  That's what the Leftists say, comparatively speaking.

Romney didn't insult Israel or kibbutzim.  Romney stated what was a fact about America that has increasingly been reduced to a political platform.  Why?  Because American culture has allowed the Left to usurp the conversation with these ridiculous and dangerous comparative notions that are completely irrelevant to the American way of life.  

Interestingly, I have yet to read a critique of Romney's so-called "gaffe" that dares to mention the article recently published in The Guardian regarding the comeback of Israeli kibbutz life.  The report that has been all the rage in the Jewish Left's social media sphere declares that, "After decades of declining numbers, bankruptcies and privatisation, Israel's kibbutz movement is undergoing a remarkable revival, with rising numbers wanting to join the unique form of collective living."  Continue reading and you'll find out that the living isn't as "collective" as it used to be:

Most kibbutzim have implemented reforms to become commercially viable and stem decline. Liberalisation – including permitting differential incomes and home ownership – has increased their attractiveness to newcomers reluctant to commit to pure communal principles.

Only about 60 of Israel's 275 kibbutzim still operate a completely collective model, in which all members are paid the same regardless of their allotted job. Most of the rest have introduced wage differentials for people employed by the kibbutz – but, more importantly, many members now work outside the kibbutz and contribute a proportion of their salaries to the collective.

Other measures have included selling kibbutz businesses, charging for meals and services, and recruiting agricultural labourers from south-east Asia. The changes, necessary for survival, have been painful, particularly for a generation of kibbutz pioneers wedded to a socialist-Zionist dream.

Pardon me while I play the part of Jewish commentator stepping outside the box: Mitt, what can the American government learn from the correlation being made between commercially viable economic reforms and increased participation in kibbutz life?

Then again, I suppose that's a comparison the Left doesn't really care to make.

To the young leftist...

There are a lot of things folks on the left-side of the political spectrum just don't get when it comes to human nature.  I was reminded of this fact just this week as I read reactions to the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare that flooded the Internet.  With the spirit of freedom in mind, I'd like to highlight a few important facts young leftists ought to keep in mind:

1.  Human beings have free will.  No matter how many laws you write, you cannot overwrite free will.  It is programmed into our systems at birth. 

2.  You cannot force good will or compassion.  Building off of our first fact, it is impossible to make one person or a group of people "like" or "be nice" to another person or group.  Again, just because you legislate or mandate "niceness" doesn't mean you can force a human being to be nice, just like you can't tax "meanness" and expect it to go away.

And while we're on the topic of money, let it be said that the socialists who continually complain about capitalists being greedy are the same folks who have no problem holding money over someone's head in order to get them to do their bidding.  So much for economic equality.

3.  It is impossible to socially engineer existence.  We are not a planet of Barbie dolls with government acting as the puppet-master.  Again, that pesky free will thing just keeps popping up.  Probably because free will is what drove the colonists to push for independence and millions more to leave regions of persecution in order to seek a better life in a country where they could, indeed, exercise their free will.  (Hint: That country has not and never will be Russia.)

The idea that you can somehow force people to do something they don't want to do in order to fit the social order that you've decided upon is the kind of nutbag idea that motivated the creation of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, Islamist Iran and all of those other lovely oppressive regimes that we've either had to destroy for the sake of humanity or are currently seeking to destroy the free world.  Just because you think your taxes on insurance, sugary drinks, or junk food aren't the equivalent of imprisoning thousands of innocents doesn't mean they won't lead down the same path.  Stalinist Russia wasn't born in a day.

4.  Human beings need to put their faith somewhere, but government ain't it.  Don't think you're some kind of cutting-edge hipster because you choose to put your faith in government instead of religion.  You're still that lonely person looking for something to believe in; the only difference is, your icon is a political personality instead of a televangelist.  What?  The toned-down suit and fancy college lingo makes that big of a difference?  Keep setting those standards high! 

Blind faith in human leadership is the reason America exists.  Our founding fathers had a keen experiential understanding of the fact that putting your faith in some untouchable leader had destructive consequences.  So, they intentionally set up a government that divorced idol worship from political office.  Of course, real leadership is a test in humility.  When George Washington was elected President, John Adams suggested that we refer to him as His Majesty the President, a title Washington was quick to decline.  But, humility is a personal choice that some leaders have been quick to ignore.  There goes that pesky free will thing again. I guess when someone is given authority (or takes it by force) they have the choice to let it go to their heads and even use it to do as they please.  And if they please, they will go ahead and usurp your freedoms in the process.

Which makes them worthy of your faith again ...in what way?

5.  Ignorance isn't bliss.  Most of the leftists who think they are so "in the know" about politics don't, in reality, know much of anything when it comes to law and governance.  The Constitution is "old" and therefore not worth reading.  Sources of news and information span the range of blatantly biased sources (like HuffPo) to the user-built Wikipedia and user-generated feed Reddit.  I can guarantee you that 9 out of 10 leftist hipsters have never heard of Pravda and think the Berlin Wall is something their old history teacher had a chunk of on their classroom desk.  Yet, in acts that illustrate their ultimate immaturity, they feel free to make sweeping judgements against anything they've been told is unpopular and place their allegiance the way a teenage girl proclaims their undying love for the latest boy band.  When questioned, they call on their arsenal of biased, uninformed media the way tweens recall Facebook posts in he-said, she-said school hallway wars. 

The scary thing is, in a world where the Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court can change his mind based on a fear of what popular media says other people think, turning a political discussion into a glorified Facebook fight is perfectly justified.  This removes our government from the realm of facts and ethics and into the shallow cesspool of primetime pop culture.  (In related news, E! is in the works to produce The Secret Life of the Supreme Court; Kim Kardashian is rumored to break up the Roberts' marriage in the first season, but dump Johnny in the season finale cliffhanger.  Shooting will begin in Malta over the next two weeks.) 

6.  You are the master of your own universe.  It is no coincidence that one of the greatest social issues of our time involves mothers breastfeeding grown children:  We have an entire wing of our political spectrum filled with young voters looking for an open teet. 

A few months ago I ran a seminar at which we were all asked to introduce ourselves and talk about our educational/career backgrounds.  Afterwards, our guest speaker came up to me and actually complimented me on the renaissance-like career I've forged for myself since graduating college.  "In my day, colleges were about giving a student a well-rounded education so they could graduate into the real world with the ability to do any number of things successfully.  Today, they're about pumping out workers for specific jobs and when those jobs aren't there, these kids don't know what to do." 

He was right.  Generation-Y, by and large, has absolutely no idea how to make it in their world on their own and educational institutions are doing nothing to foster the kind of thinking that leads to success:  individualism, integrity, and ingenuity.  From the age of five, the majority of these kids have been told what to do, when to do it, and how to do it through public education.  They've been pushed through classes for the purpose of maintaining test scores and enrollment by institutions that are more focused on statistics-based funding than real education.  The truth is that those federal dollars they crave have a price attached in the form of curricula crafted by political agenda.  (What?  The leftists in the Department of Education holding money over heads in order to get what they want?  Dance, puppet, dance!)  And while that agenda has taught Generation-Y that Heather can have two mommies and black people are cool, it hasn't done much in the way of creating productive citizens that can "ask not what their country can do for them, but what they can do for their country."  But, hey, at least they can march in a gay pride parade or plant their butts in a city park for a few months.  Those contributions are doing a boatload for our economy.

The truth of the matter is: Only you can choose your future.  If the fears you have about paying your bills are leading you to put your faith in your government, ask yourself this question: Isn't it funny that the same people telling you to rage against the evils of capitalism are the ones holding money over your head?




  

"Why isn't everybody mediocre like me?!"

I hate whiney liberals.

Scratch that - I hate whiney people, period.

And Yahoo! TV's Claudine Zap is currently at the top of the list.  In one of the latest click-topping hits on the Yahoo news bar, Zap covers/comments on the fact that conservative pundit Glenn Beck apparently just struck a deal doubling his radio show salary.  Apparently, this news isn't comforting to Zap who finds Beck's raise ironic, "...especially considering that the conservative pundit isn’t even No. 1 in his morning timeslot."  Apparently, he's only THIRD. 

Pardon me while I scoff at the idea that the Bronze medalist in talk radio might qualify for a raise, even if it is less than the deal Gold medalist Rush Limbaugh inked four years prior.

And if you still don't get the injustice behind Beck's deal (oh, which, by the way, includes his digital businesses and related advertising - something the old deal didn't, but, whatever) think of it this way: "Most Americans, however, are not getting a Beck-sized salary bump. A survey by Adecco showed only a third of Americans received a raise last year."

That's right: Not everyone in America got a raise.  But, Beck did.

(In a related sidenote, I wonder if Ms. Zap knows that not everyone in America got to leave work early to play golf this year.  But, Barack Obama did.)

Zap goes on to compare Beck's 100% raise to the Ford Motor Company's average raise of 2.7% of an employee's base salary, neglecting to mention certain facts like:

a. The Ford Motor Company has to abide by a Union contract with that "average worker" that grants them overtime pay for work done outside of their contractual shift.  Said contract also provides payment for health benefits, paid time off, and other perks like signing bonuses and profit sharing checks.  (Those who are self-employed, like Beck, have no such guarantees with any deal they sign, choosing instead to pay for their own benefits, time off, and retirement investments themselves - a pay structure so commonplace in the entertainment industry that you'd think Ms. Zap would have easily taken that into account.)

b.  The "average worker" at The Ford Motor Company doesn't need to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to maintain a security detail for themselves and their family because they constantly receive death threats for voicing their opinions publicly.

To give her critical knife a twist, Zap concludes her scintillating coverage by observing that Beck knows how to "hustle his brand" and "use his [radio] show to shill for his other products," like his books and website which, "the Wall Street Journal estimates revenue from those side businesses will bring in $40 million this year."

Speaking of media personalities who use one public platform to advertise their other products, Ms. Zap also covers the Kardashians on her Yahoo!TV blog.  She neglects, however, to mention exactly how much money they throw around per episode.  Some people can just get away with everything in this world, I guess.

Some people, like average online "news" bloggers, who unwittingly praise celebrity waste on one hand while criticizing conservative successes on the other.  What's more, they turn these celebrity wasteoids into demigods to be worshipped while condemning conservative stars (celebrities in their own right) for achieving financial success by using "logic" best exemplified by arguments seen on reality TV.  "Beck's getting more money than an auto worker!!"  Seriously?  Who are you going to compare Kim Kardashian to, then?  A maid at the Plaza Hotel?

Leftists travel in packs of double standards which is why they come off like those annoying kids in school who spent their time sucking up to the cool clique while feeling free to tell the nerds what to do.  In the end, they're just a bunch of whiners, always looking towards others to define what they themselves lack and, in turn, criticizing the successful folks for managing to do just fine on their own.

Beck got a raise because Beck, regardless of his political opinions, is good at business - a quality that Zap, as a media writer with nothing much but Yahoo behind her name, probably lacks but desperately needs.  But, the cool kids on the block don't like Beck, so Zap's going to admire Kim Kardashian instead.  Gee, I wonder what Zap and her readers can learn from a girl like Kim.

I'm not quite sure, but I hope Zap has a good collection of butt firming sneakers at home.

Love Labor Lost

One could legitimately argue that Bill Clinton (the Liberal) sounded the death knell for American Labor with NAFTA.

While large labor unions like the AFL-CIO protested the North American Free Trade Agreement, they continued to endorse the same Democrats who created and voted to enact the US job-killing legislation: Clinton, Gore, Kerry, etc.  The irony continued into the Obama Administration with AFL-CIO's President Richard Trumka issuing a statement against the proposed "NAFTA-Style" US-Korea Trade Deal, accusing the deal of being the latest in a long line of government trade deals that "sap economic growth and domestic job creation."  Yet, the union's endorsement of Obama remains as strong as ever.

Perhaps the hypocrisy of these unions - that continue to endorse candidates who propose job-killing legislation - is the source of their own demise.  A Harris Poll conducted in 1994, right as the dust was settling in the ugly NAFTA battle, indicated that "nearly half (44%) of members of union families rate the labor unions negatively."  And this was after the unions lost their battle against NAFTA.

Why would union members rate their labor orgs so negatively after these orgs had gone to battle against the most anti-worker legislation in modern American history?

The poll goes on to cite that "...substantial majorities criticize [Unions] for being too involved in politics (70%), being more concerned fighting change than bringing it about (65%), and stifiling individual intitative (59%)."  54% criticized unions for "not giving them their money's worth" and "not working for legislation that would help all working people."

The bottom line: Workers weren't getting enough bang for their buck.  In fact, workers felt that the unions harmed, not helped their careers.  So, when push came to shove, they chose to back Clinton in the battle.  After all, he was the guy the unions told them to vote for in the first place.

The Harris Poll ended with a suggestion: Unions needed "new leadership, fresh thinking and new strategies."  If a hypocritical attitude isn't enough, unions desperately suffer from a complete cultural disconnect, clearly evidenced by their need to defend themselves on long-dead battles fought at the dawn of the 20th century.  (In case you hadn't heard, now it's the 21st.)  Yes, the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire was horrible ...which is why we now have workplace safety regulations.  Yes, our ancestors used to work 20 hour days... which is why we now have anti-sweatshop labor laws.  Do you ever get the feeling that it is time to give labor unions a gold watch, a pat on the back, and a room in a retirement home?

Labor unions fight the Marxist fight to standardize humanity, totally ignorant of the fact that they're "stifiling individual initiative" in the process.  In other words, while people may need people, they don't want to be like other people.  Socialism has continued to fail in America because, unlike Europe, once we've achieved our goal as a collective we're happy to go our separate ways. 

Labor's larger ideological failure can be summed up using one great American axiom: We aren't out to re-shape the nation because, well, if something isn't broken, why fix it?  The great notion that we can be socially engineered into perfection can only be upheld so long as those touting that notion are perfect in and of themselves.  When all you can manage to be is a hypocrite out to stifle individual freedoms, you've become the political equivalent of a modern-day televangelist.  No wonder common liberals are often referred to as "Kool Aid Drinkers" - you'd need to be drugged to bow to that kind of taskmaster.

Walker won the recall in Wisconsin because he enacted legislation that gave union employees the freedoms the union had taken away.  The proof is in the pudding: If the union had been worth a damn, they'd have retained their membership and Walker would have been out the door.  Labor has lost the fight in America, but it isn't because of government, or big business, or any other faceless, nameless target on the union bar's dart board.  Labor has failed because Labor is an ideology that tells the individual, "You aren't good enough."

And, as any capitalist can tell you, that's not a good slogan for business.

On Socialism and Jews

The idea that all Jews are socialists is a stereotype.  Depending on who you are and where your ideology falls on the bell curve of political thinking, Jews are either socialists because they are anti-American or they are socialists because Jews have a longstanding religious tradition of tikkun olam.  Both of these theories exemplify the hyper-generalized thinking that derives from stereotypes which are, in and of themselves, hypergeneralized end-results that justify the means of their creators.  All Jews are no more anti-American than all Jews are pro-saving the world.  The only thing All Jews are, are individuals who happen to identify themselves as Jewish.  The definitions from that point on, more often than not, belong to the end user rather than the creator themselves.

As to why All Jews tend to be stereotyped as socialists, well, that theory has never quite been examined in full.  Probably because no one with a solid interest in the theory can drum up enough of an objective opinion when it comes to the hot-button phraseology.  To be interested in socialism to begin with, one is either definitively pro or definitively anti-socialist.  That perspective alone is enough to kill polite conversation, let alone anything bordering on serious repartee.

But, what if you weren't necessarily biased?  What if you had no relative tie to the swath of Jewish immigrants pouring into the Lower East Side from Eastern Europe in the late 1800s?  After all, that's where the theory began, right, that All Jews are socialists?  So many of them were reds that they established a daily paper in their own language, the Forverts, to get their message to the masses.  Of course, history will show that for as many Jews who were socialists, just as many weren't, but they're the boring part of this story.  For the real historian (not the political muppet) the question is, what motivated socialism among Jews in the first place? 

Well, if you lived in a ghetto and were forced to listen to a group of Rabbis tell you how to live and you grew up thinking you could never leave that ghetto because the hoards of gentiles who tended to raid that ghetto, destroy homes, rape women, and steal your livelihood would probably come after you and kill you, you'd probably be looking for an answer to your problems, too.  What better answer than an ideology that preaches that the little man deserves to have as much money and power as the big maccas?

It really is that simple, and it really has as little to do with overthrowing America as it does with a religious notion about repairing the world.  It boils down to seeking out a life-saving methodology.  The irony is:  Who knew socialism would be the ideology responsible for the murder of tens of millions of Jewish lives over the course of the 20th century?

At the time, it sounded better than the ghettos and the pogroms.

So, the most I could possibly say about the Jewish embrace of Socialism is: Hindsight is 20/20.

Compare Soviet Russia's propaganda about collective farming (second film - about 1 minute in):

with the reality of collectivization as experienced by those under Soviet rule:

Enough said?