The last issue of The Observer featured an article by Maddie Tavin arguing that young people in the YU community tend to be politically conservative, and that expressing liberal values has become “increasingly taboo.” The article expressed the opinion that college-age Modern Orthodox Jews fail to see the plight of the less fortunate beyond their community’s “bubble.” The author also expressed “frustration and disappointment” at this alleged phenomenon, which she sees as contrary to the Jewish values of charity, sympathy, and understanding for those in need. I would like to rebut the author’s assertions and demonstrate that conservatism is actually very much in line with traditional Jewish thought, that the liberal establishment as it exists today stands in opposition to these values, and that the political spectrum in YU is far more varied and heterogeneous than the author seems to think.
The author begins by claiming “many, especially young adults and teenagers, simply go along with what has become the ‘cool’ side—mainly, the conservative side.” In my experience in YU, this has not been the case. While a strong conservative bloc certainly exists in YU, especially when compared to most other liberal arts schools, it is by no means the de facto voice of the student body. I knew as many liberal Democrats among the student body as I knew conservative Republicans. I also knew Libertarians, Communitarians, Socialists, and even a black-and-white-clad semicha student who identifies as Communist.
In my three years at YU, it seemed that the liberal students were far more outspoken about their beliefs and disdainful of those with whom they disagreed than were their conservative counterparts. In the classroom, I had more than one professor who encouraged, and at times participated in the ridicule and suppression of conservative students and their beliefs during lecture. I have never seen a conservative professor in YU engage in this behavior.
The author alleged that the debate in the Orthodox community is not about social issues or foreign policy, specifically in regards to Israel. I disagree with both points. I will forgo a discussion on gay marriage, as I believe it is too expansive in its complexity for the scope of this piece. I think the abortion debate, however, can be pared down more easily. While it is true that most of us do not align ourselves with as extreme a view on abortion as many religious Catholics do, this is true of the majority of American conservatives. Despite the attempts of the liberal media to portray the right half of the political spectrum as opposing abortion under any circumstance, the debate is not nearly so clear-cut. In general, social conservatives oppose abortion when there is no danger to the mother and the fetus is in an advanced stage of development. In contrast, many liberals maintain the extreme position of supporting partial-birth abortion. In fact, President Obama opposed a bill that prevented the killing of infants mistakenly left alive after an abortion attempt, a view hardly in line with the Torah’s teachings.
It is true that both major candidates in the recent election expressed support for Israel. In fact, the Democratic party remains by and large supportive of the state of Israel. Still, there is a significantly stronger bias against Israel within the Democratic party than there is in the Republican party, and the gap continues to widen.
With respect to the conservative stance on economic policies, the author wrote: “However, conflating the decision to stick to the political right with a dedication to Jewish values is what upsets me the most.” Conversely, it is this fundamental and widespread misunderstanding of conservative economic values that, perhaps, upsets me the most.
By and large, conservatives are supportive of welfare, unemployment, and other government programs that help those in need. This is in line with Judaism, which strongly promotes charity and helping others. What Judaism does not promote, and has never promoted, is the abuse of these programs to the point where they are on the verge of collapse, and thus cannot be of help to anyone. Nor has Judaism ever condoned a system that allows people who otherwise would not need help be supported by others. I believe Ronald Reagan summed this idea up most succinctly: “Too often the safety net becomes a hammock.”
YU is an expensive school, certainly, but so is virtually every other private liberal arts college in the country. Yet, they are by and large comprised of liberal students, while YU has a large population of conservatives. Maybe this is because so many of us have seen firsthand how our grandparents or great-grandparents came to this country with nothing – not even the ability to speak English– except their desire to build a life for themselves and their families. Most of them made it without the help of government programs geared toward people who “cannot be taught to fish so easily”.
The economist Milton Friedman once said, “Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.” This, perhaps, underlies the conservative attitude toward how the economy should be run. In the conservative view, excessive government regulation of private business and excessive taxation of honestly earned money is an attack on freedom. Conservatives cherish the freedom to spend our money as we wish as the backbone of the American economy.
This does not, as the author implies, translate into greediness or lack of empathy for others. In fact, conservatives give significantly more money to charity than do liberals. They also volunteer more of their time and donate more blood. This is despite the fact that, on average, liberals earn more than conservatives. Conservatives recognize that value in giving charity of one’s own volition – and not because the government dictated how much each person must give and to whom it will be distributed.
The author also seems to not understand that conservatives do not necessarily oppose universal healthcare; conservatives oppose Obamacare, specifically the clause that unconstitutionally mandates the adoption of this healthcare program rather than private programs, on pain of paying a steep fine. Conservatives also oppose the clause that exempts the Obama family, the Cabinet, and members of Congress from this mandate.
Furthermore, the White House has conceded that Obama’s small business plan is a failure, and that it has done more to hurt small business than help.
A fundamental Jewish value is to stubbornly pursue emeth, the ultimate truth. The liberal establishment of today has demonstrated time and again that they care far more about upholding their “progressive” agenda than pursuing the truth. In 2006, Harvard University forced its president, Lawrence Summers, to resign from his post for saying in a speech that men might have more of an aptitude in math and science than women. In 2010, NPR fired Juan Williams, a Black man who has authored books on civil rights, for stating he reflexively gets nervous on planes when seeing people in Muslim garb. In 2009, the Democrat-controlled Congress barred Lord Christopher Monckton, a climate change skeptic, from testifying alongside Al Gore.
“A Case for Liberalism” describes conservatism as the liberal media wishes it to be – a portrayal that is severely distorted and lacks a fundamental understanding of what most American conservatives stand for. I believe that conservative values are far more in accordance with traditional Judaism – the ideals of truth, justice, charity, and hard work – than contemporary liberal values.