Blame the Jews?

Ironic, isn’t it, that the first ones to blame the Jews if Obama loses will be… the Jews.

Obama’s Jewish poll numbers seem to approach that of Carter, the last Democratic candidate not to get a majority of the Jewish vote. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that, to religious Zionist Jews like me, his campaign betrays a decided leftist bent reminiscent of every utopian socio-political fad that ultimately was destructive not only to us, but to the country and, in many cases, the “world order”, for lack of a better term.

For Jews who subscribe to a different set of commandments, their support of Obama is undoubtedly due to the fact that his campaign portrays a decided leftist bent reminiscent of every utopian socio-political fad that ultimately was destructive not only to us, but to the country and, in many cases, the “world order”, for lack of a better term.

“Different set of commandments”?

Absolutely.

I’ve come to the conclusion that, because I’m the one who holds myself accountable to a set of religious principles over and above a set of nebulous ethics that have become as axiomatic--if not more--than any fundamentalist religious doctrine, I am more tolerant and more open-minded than any of my co-religionists who subscribe to the contemporary liberal creed. And, make no mistake about it, contemporary liberalism is a creed.

I didn’t like being preached at during my long and extensive religious education. I don’t like being preached at when I read religious texts for my own edification. However, I never forget that what I’m reading is designed—whoever is responsible for the design—to do exactly that: preach, and preach from a Judeo-centric point of view. It is ultimately up to me to decide what morally and intellectually binds me as a result.

However, I’ll say it again: the Jews who throw an alternative moral code at me are no less self-righteous—or fundamentalist—than the farthest right-wingers with the longest beards. There are certain liberal tenets I can accept, but the beauty of liberal doctrine was supposed to be that it would be up to me to decide what would be morally binding.

That no longer being the case, I can handle the implication that my Judaism—especially when combined with my support for Israel—ipso facto renders me morally suspect, as far as liberals are concerned. I should have expected that long ago. What I suppose I’m going to have to get used to is the implication that my being Jewish should actually morally bind me to leftist doctrines, and that my refusal to do so renders me the wrong kind of Jew, or insufficiently Jewish.

If Sarah Silverman wants to be my Rabbi, where was she when I was in high school?

Back to School

I was going to write that I had thought Sarah Palin’s obvious weaknesses could have been converted to strengths.

I was going to write that her obvious inexperience in foreign policy—or, any real policy outside of Alaska—would be blunted by controversy surrounding Obama’s “community organizing”, either because of its purported lack of gravitas or the unsavory characters Obama associated with in these organizations. (This despite the fact that Obama’s Chicago “communities’” populations might have approached the total population of Alaska).

I has hoped that Gov. Palin’s sex would serve to a) reintroduce gender into the race after the Obama campaign thought it had cleared that hurdle by beating Hillary, at the same time that it would b) serve as a living breathing rejoinder to hard Left Marxist gynocentrism that remains a fundamental part of the current Democratic zeitgeist, in spite of—or even because of—her Assembly of G-d-driven outlook (vis-à-vis abortion, sex education, etc.).

I had surmised that her lack of policy experience, her relatively short political c.v. and her deeply held, unabashed belief system would be less vulnerable to generic political charges of flip-flopping, because she hadn’t had enough opportunities to do it.

I was going to theorize that the combination of these factors, and the fact that she (credibly) holds herself out as a working-class mom with a regular family (and, a certainly “imperfect” family, which could only work in her favor) and rising from the PTA to the governor’s mansion would resonate more widely with the American public than Obama’s tale of growing up with a single mother in, while not privileged, certainly a unique set of circumstances that relate to American life in much narrower (and, certainly his case, more “elite”) sense.

I hoped, once I had ceased being a swing voter and committed to the McCain-Palin ticket, that all of this would coalesce into a solid electoral asset for the ticket; especially with an economic crisis afoot where the conventional wisdom and general perception is that it is a Republican creation, her impression of a complete political and economic outsider could only help the ticket’s prospects.

I couldn’t decide whether she had handled, or been handled, in her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. However, it was evident that she had been able, to q certain degree, deflect their obvious biases, if not highlight them, so those were, at worst, a draw for her.

Then I watched tonight’s debates and saw what exactly she was up against.

It was obvious that she is being kept on a short leash.

It was clear that the hope was that, unlike her appearance onstage in Minneapolis where she truly shined, that she would simply not screw up.

It was revealed that she was truly a national policy neophyte who needed her talking points scripted and that she, unlike her counterpart, was breaking her teeth selling them in an arena where the playing field was actually level.

More importantly, it was the first time the people running the McCain campaign were really in a no-win situation, realized it, but realized they couldn’t do anything about it.

Obama sounded like a Senator. McCain sounded like a Senator. Biden sounded like a Senator.

Sarah Palin sounded like a schoolmarm, or at best, a parochial high-school social studies teacher conducting a current events lesson.

Now I might be biased, because there was only one social studies teacher I ever liked/had a crush on, and she looked nothing like Sarah Palin. I don’t think that was the case, however; I didn’t get the impression that she was being overbearing. It made her look like she wanted to finish the lesson before the class became inevitably unruly.

This time, Biden took her back to school.

I have written off the McCain campaign before, even as I had been leaning to (and am now committed to) voting for the McCain ticket.

I’m not doing that now. Up until now, Palin was an unqualified asset to the ticket. And, now that she has been freed from this social obligation of the electoral season, its time for the ticket to take off the leash and let her do what she does best.

Attack.

Republi-Karma III: Economics

In the simplest sense, the economic crisis is the result of the perfect convergence of Republican deregulation and Democratic affirmative action.

To wit, the removal of barriers between, and oversight from, investment and commercial banking, which was the true culmination of deregulatory impulses stemming back to the 1980’s, combined with the policy of handing out loans deliberately to those who were more likely to default, but whose entitlement to said loans was influenced by other factors.

One may not even have to “stoop” to identifying said factor as ethnicity; it seems as if the borrower’s likely inability to pay was the deciding factor in actually lending the money. This is paradigmatic “acqusitionism”: EVERYONE has a RIGHT to OWN a home, no matter who has to pay for it. Just like health care and education.

(This also might raise questions about whether need-based “affirmative action” in academia and elsewhere is a more reasonable policy than ethnicity-based admissions/placement. I still think it is, especially with regards education, particularly due to its more intangible benefits. )

However, there are two reasons why this crisis, beyond the stereotypical Republican-as-Wall-Street-versus-Democrat-as-Main-Street stereotype, is going to hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats.

The first reason is that, while housing was the primary catalyst is precipitating this crisis, it was more a symptom than cause, particularly because while profits were being made no one was going to complain too loudly, or at least do anything about it. The Republican claim of warnings issued about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whether they are true or not, lack credibility because the culture of deregulation is undoubtedly their creation.

The second reason is that, like 1968, the already hemorrhaging treasury is being simultaneously drained by an unpopular and divisive war. The party in charge paid for it then, and may pay for it now.

It also seems that the Democrats have gotten over their fear of playing politics to win; Nancy Pelosi seems willing to drag out the crisis long enough to allow the playing field to be tilted further in the Democrats favor. However, this naked tactic is certainly not unknown on the other side of the aisle; after 9/11, the Wall Street Journal advised Bush and his administration to use the events to his political advantage (although Rove, Cheney and his minions would have, and did, do exactly that in any case).

The only question is whether Congress is having fun grandstanding while the Treasury drains. There is no question of whether they care. They don’t.