Beliefnet
Among the candidates considered by Al Gore for the vice-presidential nomination, Joseph Lieberman was the most politically conservative. While Bush supporters are claiming that Lieberman's voting record shows a man closer to Bush than to Gore, and may be lamenting the political capital Gore may thereby accumulate with conservative voters, the rest of us have a deeper concern. Joseph Lieberman is likely to accelerate the process in which the two major parties seem to be merging into one pro-business, pro-wealthy, elitist, and morally tone-deaf governing force.Joseph Lieberman will also give greater prominence to the tendency in the Jewish world to subordinate values and spiritual goals to self-interest and material success. All the more ironic, then, that the media is responding to his nomination by talking about his willingness to critique Clinton on moral grounds or his Orthodoxy as proof of having a spiritual center.In short, Lieberman's nomination is bad for the country and bad for the Jews.Lieberman joined with Bill Clinton and Al Gore to create the Democratic Leadership Council precisely to transform the Democratic Party from its previous New Deal roots as the champion of working people, minorities, and the poor to a party that would cater to the needs of Wall Street and to the upper middle class. And they've done a great job. With Democrats on board, the gap between rich and poor has accelerated in the Clinton/Gore years, environmental protections have eroded when they conflicted with corporate interests, and instead of using the end of the Cold War to dramatically reduce the defense budget and redirect spending to rectify the history of inequality and provide basic social services, health care, and education, defense spending has been treated as sacrosanct, and savings were found by eliminating welfare.There were those who argued that all this was Clinton's doing, and that Gore in his heart was a more progressive and caring person who had to hide his true feelings in order to remain in Clinton's good graces. In selecting Joseph Lieberman, Gore has unwittingly given great impetus to the Naderites and others who argue that the trajectory of American politics is to reduce even more the differences between the two major parties. Before the American people have a chance to register their desires, the party supposed to be representing the only chance to restrict corporate irresponsibility has already made its lunge to the right.
One reason why that's not good for the country is that the elimination of real debate on fundamentals leads many people to give up on the public sphere, refusing to vote, turning away from the news, and generally being cynical about participation in any aspect of democratic life. It's also not good for the Jews. American Jews are among the most liberal voters in America, more consistently supporting a progressive agenda than any other voting bloc. There's an important reason for this--the Torah tradition has a strong commitment to social-justice values and to caring for "the other." Jews who became secular in America carried those values with them, and they became the backbone of the labor movement, the anti-war movement, the women's movement, and other progressive social-change movements of the past hundred years.But in the past 50 years, a strong conservative voice has emerged in the Jewish world that has had a very different agenda. Forged by the new possibilities of "making it" in America, these more conservative Jewish voices have insisted that the best interests of the Jewish people lie in identifying with America's elites of wealth and power, finding a place within those elites, and, just in case that didn't work out, building a militarily strong Israel to which we might escape should the (in the conservative view) ever-present danger of anti-Semitism reappear here. Cuddling up to the powerful meant subordinating social justice and joining in the celebration of the globalization of capital and the triumph of the ethos of selfishness and materialism.These same conservatives sought to build American ties to Israel on a new basis--no longer as the exemplar of democratic and human rights values that had been the view of many liberal Jews, but rather as the strong military ally of the U.S., which could fight against communist and post-communist threats to U.S. interests. From their standpoint, the documentation of Israeli torture of Palestinians, the denial of human rights, and the oppression of another people were all irrelevant and uninteresting. Jewish self-interest, from their standpoint, had nothing to do with the triumph of a moral or spiritual reality, either in the U.S. or in Israel. So while most American Jews were critical of Israeli policy toward Palestinians, these conservatives gave knee-jerk support to whatever government the Israelis produced (and to be fair, I sat next to Hadassah Lieberman at the signing of the Oslo Accords at the White House, and she was as willing to support this as she and her husband had been to support previous hawkish Israeli governments).
Join the Discussion
comments powered by Disqus