The Tea Party, Austerity, and the End of Western Hegemony

A series of mishaps has struck a resurgent, albeit tea-infused, Republican Party. Rich Lott (R-Ohio) was exposed by the press for dressing as a Nazi... for a war reenactment... that didn't include any genocidal references, bad taste, bad politics, but not necessarily anti-Semetic. Before that Delaware Republican Senate candidate, Christine O'Donnell was exposed as a "witch" who on a decades old video clip says "I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven.”
Interestingly the clip hit the Internet just days after she stunned longtime congressman Mike Castle in the GOP primary in her third bid for Senate.
It would seem the Democrats were party to a bona fide, that's right, witch hunt!

Most recently a politically significant, however underreported nationally, story came out of Arizona, "The office of Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) has been locked down due to the presence of a suspicious package covered with swastikas. KVOA reports that an "envelope containing white powder" was mailed to Grijalva's Tucson office. Bomb technicians are reportedly on hand" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/raul-grijalva-suspicious-package_n_772166.html).

This episode will likely galvanize the Hispanic voting public both in Arizona and nationally because it serves as a non-verbal reminder to a major minority population that "hey vote for us or get THAT".

Could all of these recent disclosures be more than politics as usual? Could it be part of a larger effort to destroy the Tea party?

We may never know. However there is another unique development surrounding the Tea parties success and subsequent national media developments- the GOP (Grand Old Party i.e. the Republican establishment) is working against the Tea party.

To illustrate how keen the Republican establishment is on trying to crush the tea party, notice that the party is under attack from the likes of former Republican speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich and Michael Steel, Chairman of the National Republican Committee. Indeed the Republican establishment has funneled millions of dollars to boost main stream candidates in Republican primaries (http://thinkprogress.org/teaparty-primaries/). True conservative stalwarts like Rush Limbaugh and Mike Huckabee are defending the Tea Party but all in all the Democratic and Republican establishment are on an all-out offensive against the incipient "tea-baggers".

So why is there is so much bipartisanship effort directed as halting the Tea parties advance?


We should begin by asking: if the tea party takes over the Republican party and thus congress, does that mean we can expect real austerity measures, like those inching their way through parliaments in Western Europe?

Athens burned, Sarkozy is facing a fierce street-fight over his efforts to raise France's retirement age from 60 to 62, and the UK has passed a measure to reduce overall government expenditures by 18 %, a measure that includes the layoff of over 500,000 public sector employees -one third of its public workforce.

Will we go that route with the Tea party in power?

If so do we realize that austerity measures for America would be Ron Paul-like. They would probably include disbanding our ubiquitous military bases and pulling our forces out of places like, South Korea, Germany, Japan, Taiwan (Yes it costs a million dollars a day to fund an aircraft carrier we have 10)?

But it also means that the sprawling military-industrial complex, that Eisenhower forewarned will dissolve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower), and the subsidized-induced R&D innovations, like the internet, will no longer emerge with expected frequency. We will lose our technological edge -if we haven't already.

Yet our austerity measures will have far-reaching implications. Unlike Europe's localized measures the dissolution of global American power leaves the West with no shield from a variety of economic and political threats. Not that China wants to destroy us, but if we pull out of Asia, we, and the West, will loss our preferential access/relationships to the fastest growing region in the world. It could even result in the de-democratization of much of the developing world.

That’s right, at end of WWII America supplanted the British military as the protector of the global Western enterprise. Britain was happy to transfer the its strategic military position to a kindred-western spirit, after all it allowed them to maintain their economic power. Who will take our place, who will be the West’s America? India -the most populous democracy in the world- is not yet mature enough to take on that daunting challenge. Europe has its own debt crises, and has already exchanged its armies for universal health care and the likes. America like Europe has a massive debt crisis, but we borrowed more to supplement our military than we did to create a welfare-state.
European austerity affects Europeans; austerity for America could change the entire geopolitical landscape.

Tea party austerity may very well mean the end of a Western-Democratic streak dating back a little over 500 years to the reunification of the Spain under Ferdinand and Isabella.
This may explain the almost conspiratorial nature of recent revelations concerning Tea party candidates. It may also be one of the few developments significant enough to stimulate bipartisanship.

In any case this generation of Americans may be witnessing another watershed development in our world’s cyclical evolution.

The, Reality, Psychology, and the Future: Three Thoughts on the Pakistan Deluge

ONE, The Sad Reality:

Why has there not been a upwelling of Muslim support for the people of Pakistan?
When Israel defends itself and stops a flotilla dead in its track, the Muslim world erupts in anger, millions are raised to support further flotillas, and the UNGA is enveloped in yet another wave of anti-Israel fervor.

When a man publishes a caricature of Muhammad, people are murdered, embassies are burned, the Muslim world seethes, and religious fatwa’s are published by the dozen.

Why has there not been a surge of Muslim support for the people of Pakistan? Where are the fatwa’s declaring it obligatory for Muslims to help? Where are the public demonstrations in Indonesia, France, and the UK demanding foreign aid and/or focusing attention on the plight of millions? Where are the furious leftist of Huffington post, fundraisers of apartheid week, and the organizers of anti-Israel boycott campaigns?

20 MILLION people are HOMELESS!

Western news reports claim that the flood will halt NATO operations and allow the Taliban to regroup. But do they realize that the situation is far more dire? Al Qaida, the Taliban, and myriad other “fringe” Islamic extremists pray daily for such “opportunities”. While the secular government of Pakistan continues the trend –evident in their failure to eliminate the Pakistan Taliban- of acting against Pakistan's best interests, the murderers have begun pouring millions of dollars into relief efforts, replacing the government and establishing their grip on every day Pakistan.

Instead of the moderate Muslims community galvanizing to help the people of Pakistan, never mind helping affirm a peaceful image of Islam that their funds would foster in Pakistan, they are barely audible. Are they waiting for the next flair-up against Israel to muster their resources ad raise their voices?

Yes, I am intimately familiar with inter-group dynamics; how people tend to react when an outsider challenges an insider. Yes all groups rage when one of their own is attacked. But that there is such a discrepancy between the extraordinary resources used to fight the outsider and the pittance being offered amongst insiders (at Friday Mosque collections etc.). The inexplicable gap between the myriad articles published in the Muslim press regarding the ground zero mosque (please see Turkish English daily Hurriyet for a sampling ) and the few referencing the plight of Pakistani's.


For all peace loving people, people that believe that most Muslims want peace, the tepid Islamic support for their suffering brothers and their rage towards outsiders is...


TWO, The Self Defeating Psychology:

Why hasn't India jumped on the opportunity to help Pakistan’s flood victim and itself, by promoting stability on its border? Doesn't India have the most to lose if Pakistan descends completely into the hands of the Islamic extremists? Why hasn’t India offered a substantial relief package to Pakistan?


Another Question:

Why is it that the Muslim regimes of the Middle East do not embrace the opportunity in their midst. Imagine Israeli drip-technology irrigating the arid desserts of Syria, or its desalination plants replenishing Yemen's thinning water sources. Would not an (energy starved?) Iranian partnership with Israel developing solar technology serve Iran’s interest more than its current quasi-suicidal attempt at becoming a nuclear regime? Or an Erdogan who used Turkeys, then relatively, neutral position to foster peace, instead of exacerbating tensions in the middle-east in a mad attempt at consolidating his political power. Yes the Muslim street is full, and full of rage, but not because of Israel but rather because there are no jobs. Israel can drive the middle-east into the 21st century and in the process stabilize a slew of tottering illegitimate regimes -even eliminate the need for them.

But that requires peace, and peace requires a measure of humility.

Humility like that shown by Obama, (the leader of the greatest country the world has ever seen) when he stooped down to Iran,( a nation that served the Sun and Moon when it last experienced greatness), and declared “we will extend our hand if you unclench your fist”. Or the humility of Israel when it repeatedly ignores the homicidal mantras and monologues of its neighbors proclaiming it desires peace, and backing up that deceleration by heart-wrenching actions like expelling its own citizens, TWICE. Or the humility of Ataturk’s Turkey when it openly accepted aid from Israel after the devastating earthquakes, and then said thank you.

When will the majority of the middle-east shake off the antiquated and self-destructive culture of ego and put their own best interest before their misplaced self-importance (see the Arab mind 1973, by Raphael Patai)? When will the larger middle-east accept reality and harness its intrinsic potential?

Was Obama criticized for reaching out to Iran, even called weak? Yes. Were Israeli leader criticized and threatened when they forced 8,000 Jews from their homes in Gaza, or when they withdrew from Southern Lebanon, in their imprudent hope for peace? Yes, but they acted because they put their own self interest BEFORE PRIDE, if only the other side would have seen the reality of a peaceful opportunity instead of the mirage of Israeli weakness.

It is the psychology of Pakistan and most of the Middle-East to worship the delusional self-image despite the decaying body. To destroy 60 years of positive relations because you were humbled, in Davos, in front of the world. To even consider rejecting aid from India because that may foster the image of Pakistan’s inferiority.

So India offered a diminutive 5 million dollars, and Pakistan has yet to accept it (http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/pakistan-says-yet-to-decide-on-india-s-aid-offer-45186)...

THREE, The Frightening Future:

Will Pakistan become the next Iran?

After all the Islamic extremists used the upstanding Pakistan middle class –led by the supreme- court and jurists- to force the secular Musharraf’s resignation. Just as Khomeini fooled the moderate bazzar (the Iranian middle-class) into thinking he was rebelling against the corruption, and not replacing a secular tyrant with a adultery stoning Islamic tyranny ( Khomeini’s Ghost, Coughlin, 2009). It goes without saying that are differences that go beyond culture such as Pakistan long standing inability to centralize control over all its territory and the lack of a figure, such as Khomeini, who has the respect and fealty of the majority of the country.

Still no one believed that Khomeini could overthrow the Western-backed Shah, or that a theocratic regime in Iran would still be in power 30 years after its revolution. Indeed it is exactly this type of “G-dly punishment” (no doubt a consequence of Pakistan supporting pro-western activities) disaster that could catapult an Islamic tyranny/theocracy into power. Just try imagining a nation run by an Iran-like oligarchy WITH NUKES!

My Chabad Friends: Provide the Thirsty Reader with Some Clean Water.

I often wonder how those close to great historical figures react when reading the inevitable plethora of biographies authored by unqualified experts? When the first biographer of Mohandas Gandhi, authored their work did those close to Gandhi wince? Did they smile and whisper to themselves “they will never understand” or did they author frustrated rebuttals of the misguided agenda-driven biographers? Perhaps they wrote reviews claiming that the authors lacked a basic understanding of the subjects scholarship? Whatever the reaction the memory of almost every historical figure exists in a perpetual state of controversy. Washington the great defender of American freedom and a slave owner. JFK enactor of civil rights, and the married lover of many women. The Lubavitcher Rebbe, the missionaries missionary, the scholars scholar, the rabbis rabbi, a student of Kantian philosophy, engineering, and awarded, posthumously, the Congressional Gold Medal. The Messiah?

As one would expect the only comprehensive biographies of the Rebbe are extremely controversial.
Of course there are many innocuous books, but they are usually written by devotees who are enveloped in their masters majesty. Like clockwork they remind the reader of the Rebbe’s prodigious memory, his miracle working, and his humanity (there is a myriad of such biographies). These books invariably begin with the hackneyed upbringing of the Rebbe, the fact that he was a prodigy etc. and then skip to the Rebbe’s meeting and eventual marriage with the Previous Rebbe’s, (his predecessor) daughter. After that expect another quantum leap to the Rebbe’s arrival in America in 1941, interspersed with some stories of the Rebbe’s lifestyle in Berlin and France. Don’t get me wrong this is all good and accurate. Still it leaves the curious reader hungry for more. What shaped the Rebbe? How did he attain his extraordinary proficiency in every stream of secular knowledge? What did the Rebbe specifically study in Berlin, and Paris, why? What was the Rebbe’s relationship at that time with his wife, family, and larger Jewish community? Did the Rebbe have a correspondence with his professors? For whatever reason, perhaps because I was so awed by the Rebbe I knew and still know, I never verbalized these questions.

But then.

I remember a friend at Brooklyn college pulling out a plain blue hard cover book -I was ecstatic. Finally a scholarly work that explored the Rebbe before he accepted the mantel of Rebbe in 1951. Unfortunately it was written by a known malcontent. This disaffected former student of ChaBaD, subtly educated me, the reader, about the ostensibly less spiritual origins of the Rebbe (Larger than Life [out of print], Deutsch 1995 part, II 1997).

Then two professors (scholars?) Samuel Heilman (CUNY) and Menachem Freidman of (Bar Ilan, Israel) teamed up and authored a “human biography”: The Rebbe: The Life and Afterlife of Menachem Mendel Shneerson (Princeton University Press, 2010). When I heard about it I was as excited as when I discovered Deutsch’s book. But instead of immediately reading it I decided to first pre-color my judgment of the book by discussing it with “a close acquaintance of the Rebbe”, who I in turn have the privilege of being very close too. I do not think it's fair to share his name, but suffice it to say he offered a different perspective, the insider perspective. Not to digress, he also shared with me that he knew Deutsch. Let’s just say that if I previously read Deutsch with a grain of salt now I read him with a myriad of spices.

But I admit that was, for me, a juicy digression.

Either way their conclusion, my acquaintance argued, is deeply flawed because the biography is rife with erroneous translations of the Rebbe’s writing, of which there is over 300,000 pages. The authors, in turn could not have a clear unobstructed conception of the Rebbe’s philosophical and theological thinking, and they did not consult with individuals that did. Their thesis not only guided the thrust of their writing (which is normal, every writer has an agenda) but also caused them to disregard almost every piece of evidence that contradicted their hypothesis. Their thesis itself -that the Rebbe failed in his secular pursuits and only then decided that he would stand at the helm of ChaBaD as it initiated and implemented the biggest revival in Judaism since Ezra and Nehemiah- was deeply flawed if only because it ignores or misconstrues the Rebbes personality, writings, and fails at connecting the dots vis-a-vis ChaBaD’s extraordinary success.

Now my point:

However justified the insider criticism is simply not loud enough to discredit the book nor does it suppress the widespread desire to understand the Rebbe. In my opinion, every historical figure has been subjected to apocryphal analysis and agenda driven biographical studies. In those cases as in this case, the insiders and scholars authored criticisms in the relevant media, and most readers disregarded or were unaware of those criticisms. Most readers can’t be blamed for accepting what they read nor will the insider criticism of a given biography quench the thirst for information, on the contrary controversy stimulates interest.

My suggestion is another biography be authored by an insider who is able to explore and discuss the totality of the Rebbe’s life even those parts that may be construed as secular or even negative (I understand the eminent Rabbinic scholar, Adin Steinsaltz, began but never finished) . It is never an easy task for a devotee to author, or assist in authoring, anything that may challenge the well crafted image of the object of their devotion. Still it is better than armchair criticism. Indeed if the insider really cares about the image of the Rebbe than it is imperative that they provide the thirsty reader with some clean water.

Josephus and Conversions: Is World Jewry Destined to be Divided?

“Titus retired to Antonia intending to launch a full scale attack at dawn the next day and surrounded the sanctuary completely. It had, however, been condemned to the flames by G-d long ago…the 10th of Loos the day which centuries before had seen it burnt by the king of Babylon. But it was the Jews themselves who caused and started this conflagration (Josephus, The Jewish War, VI,254).

What did the Jews do that made them the destroyers of the holy temple? Was it their decision to fall back on it as a last defense, or perhaps the very fact that they went to war with Rome? According to many it was the discord that existed amongst the various factions of Jews that devolved into self destructive baseless hate.

Regardless, as Josephus aptly pointed out 1,940 years ago, the 10th of Loos, or as Jews know it the 9th of Av was, is, a day of Jewish mourning. According to the bible, it is the day when the Jews received the news from the 12 spies, 10 of whom proclaimed that the promised land, Canaan, was a death trap. Because the Jews rejected G-d’s promise that Israel would be given to them and mourned their impending destruction G-d proclaimed that “you mourn for no reason, I will give you a reason to mourn”.

Later Solomon’s temple was set on fire by the Babylonians in 586 BCE as they sacked the city of Jerusalem, and killed 100,000 of Jews. It was in the 9th of Av 1492 that the Jews were expelled from Spain. WWI began on the 9th of Av 1914, which according to most students of history led to WWII and the holocaust. It was on the 9th of Av that the expulsion of the Jews by Jews from Gush Katif, Gaza was signed into law. The irony of the date is one of the great under-reported paradoxes in history. The “disengagement” from Gaza led to Iran’s proxy, HAMAS, establishing a base in Gaza, and the 1000’s of rockets that continue to rain on Israel’s population.

Not to be outdone the Jewish community is once again embroiled in a internal struggle. This time over, it involves a controversial conversion initiative, the “Rotem bill”. The bill, passed 5-4 by the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, stipulates that all conversions in Israel must be approved by the office of the chief Rabbinate. Moreover, any Jewish convert that wishes to move to Israel under the “Law Of Return” -which ensures automatic citizenship to any Jew to preclude another scenario were Jews are persecuted with nowhere to flee- will have their conversion evaluated by the Orthodox Rabbinate.

The powerful Reform/Conservative movement in America and the smaller albeit growing Israeli Masorti (essentially the Israeli conservative movement), are up in arms claiming that this bill effectively disqualifies their conversions, and ultimately delegitimizes their interpretation of Judaism. Furthermore, leaders of the American Jewish-liberal faction, have authored public letters condemning the bill and arguing that it will foster disunity between the American and Israeli Jewish communities at a time when unity is imperative. Supporters of the bill including FM Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party, and Netanyahu’s minority partner in the Knesset counter that this will streamline the often frustrating/complicated conversion process for many immigrants, who are the political base of the Lieberman’s party. The Haredi/ultra-Orthodox, and National-Religious parties, which at first opposed the bill, now support it as it “will ensure that all those that claim to be Jews are actually Jews”. Meanwhile Netanyahu repudiated the bill asserting that it will divide the Jewish community while preventing any Likud committee members from attending the vote.

There are three issues here that I believe need to be addressed:

1. Is this bill and the Law of Return racist?
2. Is this bill intended to undermine progressive Judaism?
3. Is this bill another Josephus-like self afflicted division in global Jewry?

Before we can discuss whether the bill is racist it is important to first address what made this bill necessary. Namely the growing number of immigrants to Israel who came to Israel under the Law of Return, and desire to convert, or have had apocryphal conversions. The Law of Return stipulates automatic Israeli citizenship to any individual with one Jewish grandparent. The reasoning behind this thinking was that Hitler classified anyone with a Jewish grandparent as Jewish.


The fact that a Jew and the immediate family of a Jew gain near automatic citizenship under the Law of Return is often labeled racist. Yet this law is not so much asserting Jewish racial superiority or inherent rights. Rather it is intended to allow for the implementation of the philosophy behind the creation of the state of Israel. In other words Jews for two millennia have been at the mercy of tyrants, demagogues, emperors, popes, caliphs, reformists, and fascists. The only way Israel can offer maximum protection to Jews is by granting them a retroactive place of refuge, i.e. you always have/had a place where you will be relatively safe. Another way to understand the Law of Return is that it asserts that Jewish citizenship in Israel is rooted in the bible and secular history. Thus the Law of Return is not granting new citizenship to Jews but rather making sure that the person coming through the border is already a citizen, by virtue of the their biblical and historical relationship with Israel. This is not just premised on religion but also unambiguous historical records, Israel was the Jewish homeland. Indeed many countries like Germany, Spain, Poland, and Japan, also give preferential consideration for prospective immigrants with ethnic ties. Is this racist? I don’t think so.


With this preface we can better understand the relationship between, and the implications of, the Rotem bill and the Law of Return. If “who is a Jew” is decided by the Orthodox Chief Rabbinate then those eligible to move to Israel by choice or by genocide, would be subject to the Orthodox criteria for conversion, which is designed to prevent opportunism, minimal acceptance of Judaism, and Jewish tradition. Furthermore, if it is passed by the Knesset it will inevitably delegitimize progressive Judaism.

The question is whether that delegitimization is the intended goal or a bi-product of a bill purely formulated with domestic issues in mind?

Unfortunately the media has focused on the dividing results of the bill without giving the other motivations sufficient consideration. After all the bill's positives may outweigh its negatives. The debate can’t be complete without considering that Lieberman simply wants to gain concessions for his political base who are predominantly eastern-European immigrants and would benefit from streamlined conversions. At the same time the motivation may be a lot more complex than concluding that it one or the other.

One perspective offered is that Lieberman is creating leverage with Netanyahu to be used in the upcoming budget debate. Lieberman will drop support for the bill if Netanyahu will agree to Lieberman’s budget demands.

It may also be that Lieberman, the uncompromising strongman in rightwing Israeli politics, is actually challenging the prodigious influence of American Jewry in Israel. There is no question that American-Jewish progressives are the ideological allies of the political left in Israel –Lieberman’s sworn foes. Moreover Jewish-American progressives, actually helped elect Obama, the man who tried to have Lieberman’s right-wing party replaced with Tzipi Livni’s left-leaning Kadima. Thus this bill serves Lieberman’s interests by weakening the progressive Jewish-American establishment. At the same time the majority of progressive Jewry are staunchly pro-Israel and continue to be so. Is Lieberman intentionally weakening his political opponents abroad to strengthen his domestic position? If so he may actually be putting himself before his country.

From whatever perspective it is clear that Lieberman’s primary intentions vis-a-vis the bill are difficult to pin-down. That being said there is certainly merit to the assertion that this bill will divide the global Jewish community.

The real question is whether this bill will result in another display of the Jewish communities masochistic tendencies described by Josephus 2 millennia ago, in this very month, or does this bill actually offer an iconoclastic opportunity?

I guess it depends on how you see the nature of our existence. If everything happens for a greater purpose then this event is another keystone in a necessary progression towards a greater good. Who knows, perhaps this an opportunity to overcome global Jewry’s propensity to allow a difference of opinion to devolve into baseless hate.

However this turns out let it not divide us!