American Egoism - Two Sides of the Same Coin

King Solomon had a special ring made with the words: “This too shall pass.” When tings were going especially well for the Jewish king, he would look at the inscription, and be humbled; when things were going poorly, he would look at the ring and become encouraged.

In later centuries, Jewish sages continue the teaching.  They taught that we should walk around carrying two notes to self. When times are difficult, we should review the note that says: For you the world was created. When our ego is particularly inflated, we should remember that we were created from a putrid drop, and in the end we will become worm food.

Maintaining the balance between self confidence and humility is important. But, more so, it is the natural tension between these two polar extremes, both being in play (rather than a conservative middle ground) that can lead to a successful, but well grounded individual. It also can lead a nation to greatness.

While I don't tend to write much about American society, the current political currents in the nation of my birthplace has stimulated reflection, and have given me some interesting insights.

American egoism-- its focus on the rugged individualism, the importance of each citizen has lead to some amazing accomplishment, and rapid progress. Everyone in America is taught the same lesson from birth, that if one works hard enough, he or she can accomplish anything. American children are ingrained with the idea that nothing is beyond their grasp, that they have the ability and the right to succeed. Each individual, we are taught through the American Declaration of Independence has the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Each individual is important.

For the first two centuries of it's existence, this underlying philosophy and teaching, which focuses on the importance of the individual worked. It fostered the establishment of a society, whose members knew no bounds, whose accomplishments knew no limits.

Yet, during those first two centuries, America's egoism was tempered by a religious and cultural humility, which reminded those gigantic individuals of their essential smallness in the scheme of things. Individualism was directed towards the service of the greater good, towards the fulfillment of a larger overarching destiny. Individual egoism was sort of bound up in a collective egoism that tempered any tendency towards narcissism.

The egoism was focused outwards for the betterment of the world.

There has been a shift. 

We live in an age that eschews the idea of a greater anything. Even one's moral code is based almost entirely on how the individuals feels, how it relates to the self. More than simple relativism, today's moral compass is based almost solely on each individual's subjective visceral and personal experience. There is no longer a concept of a greater good, and certainly, not at the expense of the individual's personal and transitory momentary good.

Individualism has matured into nihilistic egoism.

Nothing seems to symbolize that more than the two candidates standing for election. While anyone standing for election in America, at least in recent years,almost by definition, would have to  have a tremendous ego, this year's candidate for the leader of the free world has gone more than a step forward. There doesn't even seem to be the illusion of self sacrifice for the common good anymore. One candidate's main argument for election is that she feels that she deserves it. The other seems to have a sociopathic need for it.

The great American individualism tempered with service to a higher cause brought great advancement and accomplishment. Without the submission to a higher purpose this has degenerated into total and pervasive narcissism.

Without remembering that we are naught but dust and ash, we will never reach the stars.

The Other 800 Pound Gorilla in the Room - Small Parties and Government Stability

The recent elections in Israel have exposed several of those eight hundred pound gorillas that have been hanging about in the room.  But most of them, such as the potential power of the Arab vote, had been known, and conveniently ignored, for years. What amazes me, is the other eight hundred pounder, the one that people invented, which led to the birth of the United Arab Party.

From nearly every corner of Israeli society, there has been a constant call for government stability, which is political parlance for a limited number of large parties, as opposed to a collection of smaller parties which “hold the government hostage,” over their particular issues.

In fact, it was to fulfill this desperate need for eliminating smaller parties that the last government raised the threshold allowing a party to enter into the Israeli Knesset (parliament). And so, they were successful. In the last election, instead of three or four small Arab parties, Israel now has a large united Arab list, which represents more mandates than they did previously. In terms of government stability, this changed nothing. The Arab list had no intention of being part of a Likud led or a Labor led government, and therefore their unity has little effect on the executive branch of the government. Their unity may potentially help their constituency, as they will now be eligible for more seats on important parliamentary committees, but as far as forestalling early elections, it will have little effect.

In contrast, because of the raised threshold several smaller parties, principally YaHad, will not be represented, and this will surely affect the stability of the government, to its detriment. Further, the stability of Israeli society, it would seem, would benefit from the greatest plurality of representation, what we would call in any non- political venue, consensus.

But, before we talk about the stability of society, and what's best for the average citizen, I will demonstrate how small parties have the ability to make the government far more stable, though each of its constituents might have less power. This is, of course, is the eight hundred pound gorilla that no one wants to discuss. When the politicians talk about “stability,” what they really mean is more concentrated power. Stability has become a euphemism for control and rule, for the ability to push through what would otherwise be, unpopular agendas. In fact, especially in the early years of the state, the “instability” was the result of the prime minister not being able to bully his partners into complying with his will. In the early years of the state (when the threshold was at its lowest), only the fourth Knesset was forced into early elections. The dissolution of the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth , seventh,eighth and tenth governments all fell due to the Prime Minister being unable to force his agenda on the other members (and, the eleventh government fell because of Ben-Gurion as well, who was not the Prime Minister at the time). Fortunately, for the most part during these “unstable” governments, the citizens were saved from early elections. In fact, many of the newly formed governments consisted of the same coalition partners as before the government “fell,” making a mockery of the concept of instability.

In fact, the instability of Israeli governments has much more to do with the various mechanization of the politicians in the larger parties to gain and hold onto their power than it has to do with small parties' demands. There is absolutely no correctional between the raising of the threshold and the stability of the government in power. In fact, it might be the opposite.

The truth is that a plurality of small interest parties requires everyone to limit their appetite, restrain action which might alienate participants and try and arrive at a common consensus of policy - policy that, while not what everyone one wanted, would be what everyone could agree upon.

To demonstrate: Likud received thirty mandates, which is less than the number necessary it needs to form a government alone. It is currently courting five parties, Kahlon, Jewish Home, Shas, United Torah Judaism and Yisrael Beytenu, which bring another thirty seven mandates collectively. Yet, each and every one these parties can hold the rest of the parties, particularly Likud, “hostage.” Without their mandates, the government can not be formed. And if it is formed, then each of them can threaten to bring down the government by leaving. This is no more stable than the last government.

However, if the threshold hadn't been raised, then YaHad would also be a natural candidate for the government, and with its three mandates, no one party (other than Likud) could threaten the government by leaving. And if the threshold was even lower to allow for Yaleh Yaroq (The Green Leaf) party to have entered into Knesset, it is possible that their one issue could have been accepted to add even more stability.

In fact, if one looks at the previous governments of Israel, that is exactly how the more stable ones remained in power. They catered to a wide consensus of the electorate's will.

And of course the most stable government would be one in which the executive branch's role was not a vehicle of power and privilege, but fulfilled its limited but vital role to execute the will of the people, either expressed directly (though various methods such as a referendum) or via a legislature. In such a scenario, the largest consensus of society could be represented on each issue, as each representative or deputy of the people would vote based on the issue and not based on their position in a power base called a political party.

Which leads us to the idea of a stable society. In truth, the instability of the government is really only a reflection of the greater fragmentation of Israeli society. Israel society has become more complex, and its issues have become more varied and nuanced. The focus of the society is less on the country's survival, the question of its existence, and much more on the quality and character of the society. Stifling that nuanced and important discussion, by limiting opinions through raising the threshold will not make the society more stable, more homogeneous. Quite the opposite, those sectors who feel that they are not represented, who feel they have no voice, may resort to other methods of expressing their will.

And again, the recent elections are a prime example. A large number of people who voted for the ill fated YaHad, come from the same sections of society accused of “nationalistically motivated crime,” actions, which come about through feelings that their will is frustrated; that their voices are stifled. Silencing more voices, frustrating more people's political will, will not bring about stability. Rather, it has the potential to create an explosion.

If democracy means that everyone has a voice, then the ideal would be a mechanism that allows for the greatest plurality of representation, as in a referendum system. The opposite would limit representation and choice to as narrow a field as possible, as we have seen in extremes, with the one party systems of the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. It is true that a one part system will be a more stable, efficient government. But then again, all forms of dictatorship, including an oligarchy, are. Yet, it is also true, especially in the extreme, that the less pluralistic the system of representation, the further away a government is from realizing the collective will of its citizens. A pluralistic system might be less efficient, but it will certainly arrive much closer to an approximate consensus of the people.

I hope I'm Wrong אני מקווה שאני טועה ...

*******The English version follows the Hebrew*******

אני עוקב אחרי המשא ומתן על קואליציה עם אותו הלם שמישהו רואה תאונת דרכים:  נורא מדי להסתכל, אבל אי אפשר לסגור את העניים ולמנוע עצמו ללא לצפות.
 

אני אחד מאלה מיהודה ושומרון שלא הצביע "לבית יהודי."

אני כמעט תמכתי בו – כמעט.  בכל הדברים לקראת  הבחירות היו נקודות - דברים שבנט אמר, רעיונות המציאו, ותוכניות שהציגו – שגרם לי לחשוב שאולי הפעם, אולי מפד"ל (המפד"ל שפעם) באמת חזר לתשובה.   היו לי רגעים של תקווה, אמנם היא הייתה אותה תקווה  של בעל שכבר נתפס זמן רב את אשתו במצבים חשודים, אבל בכל זאת הייתה תקווה.

ואז קרה משהו שהורד לי את התקווה.  באמת, אניני יכול לבטא את מה היו אותם הדברים, אבל הם חזרו אותי לעמדה של "לחכות ולראות."  חשד דחף את תקוותיי, ובסופו של דבר, לא הצבעתי לבית יהודי, ואף על פי כן קיוויתי שאני טועה.

אבל עכשיו, אני חייב להודות, אני לא מתחרט על ההחלטה שלי בכלל.  "ודנה כתבה די רשים:  מנא ,מנא, תקל, ופרסין (דניאל ה:כה)."  מפד"ל הישן עדיין חי.  המפלגה שבגדה בארץ ישראל – יש להם אחריות מאליות שנתנו  האפשרות של ההתנתקות לצאת לפועל,  ובכך יצירו אפשרות "ניתוק" בין ארץ ישראל ועם ישראל - כעת אמרו לבגוד בתורת ישראל, ולעודד "ניתוק" בין העם לתורת ישראל.

להיות ברור, אני לא אוהד של השקפת עולמו של הציבור הליטאי החרדי.  אני לא חסיד של מבט עולם של ה"ישיביש," מבט עול הנוכחי שלו שמתעלם ממה כתוב בתורה והכתובה שלהם ושולח נשיהם לבעלות אחרת חוץ הבית כש אנשיהם יכול להחביא עצמם בתוך הישיבות בלי ללמוד ממש.  וקשה לי להאמין שהגאולה שלימה תתממש דרכם.  באמת נראה לי שהם עושים ממאמץ טוב ביותר, במודע או שלא, כדי לעכב את גאולה כמה שאפשר.

עם זאת, בית יהודי לא בצד נכון במלחמה המערבולת הפוליטית הנוכחית.  בואו להיות ישר ולדבר דוגרי לרגע.  הוויכוח הוא לא על הסחת הדעת של "ניטל שווה", אלא על אך להופך ולהכניע התורה למדינה.

הטעונות, על ממון, שווה בנטל וכדומה, כולם כל לסיח הדעת, תחבולות לכסות הטענה המרכזית לכפות סקטור מסוים (שמפחיד פחד מוות את כל המגזרים האחרים), לקבל את הערכים ואת אורח החיים של הסקטורים האחרים.  בקיצור אנחנו בהמשך של התהליך הניסיון להפוך היהודי לישראלי החדש.

והוא קרב שמפד"ל כבר וותר עליו, בכניעת התורה לעליונות של המדינה, במיוחד במונחים של ארץ ישראל, אבל גם כמו כן בנושאים רבים אחרים,  כגון לכפות על בחורים להקשיב לקול אישה ל"טובת המדינה."

וכמו רוב אנשים נכנעים הם רוצים שאחרים ייכנעו גם.  לכן, הם רוצים לכפות על החרדים לקבל תפישת העולם שהמדינה מעל הכול, כולל התורה.  למטרה הזאת, מפד"ל משתמש בנושא של שירות צה"ל (שאפילו בנט בעצמו אמר שהצבא גדולה מדי להיות יעילה) לכפות עליהם להיות כמו הם, לקבל ערכים שלהם.  וגרוע מכך, למטרה שאת בנט הכניס מפד"ל לברית עם דמות, באהבה מוצהרת, מכחיש את עצם העקרונות וערכים המצהרים של מפד"ל.  לפיד הצהיר באופן ברור שמטרתו היא לא לשבור את "המונופול החרדי על תורה, אלא להחסיר את ההגמוניה של שומרי תורה בכלל בארץ (לפיד אמר מפורש הוא רוצה לתת כוח ללא אורתודוקסים בארץ).  ולאחר שנכנע העקרונות שלו לשם האינטרסים המיידי שלו (בדיוק כפי שהם עשו כך בהתנתקות), לא יהיה למפד"ל כוח לעצור אותו.  

I've been following the coalition negotiations in Israel with the same fascination one watches a car crash:  It's too horrible to watch, but you can't take your eyes off it.

I'm one of those people living in Yehudah and Shomron (Judea and Samaria – the Territories) who didn't vote for Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home). 

I almost did support them - almost.  In the time leading up to the election, there were things that Bennett said, ideas offered, and plans made that made me think that maybe this time, maybe Mafdal (the old NRP) has really been reformed.  For a moment I had hope.  Granted it was the hope of a man who had already caught his wife too many time in compromising situations, but it was still hope. 

Then something happened that shook my hope.  I'll be honest, I can't articulate what those things were, but they pushed me back into a wait and see attitude.  Suspicion crowded out my hope, and, in the end I didn't vote for them.  I thought, even hoped that I was wrong.

But now, I have to admit, I do not regret my decision at all.  The writing is on the wall.  The old "Mafdal" (NRP) still lives.  The party that betrayed the Land of Israel – they are bear ultimate responsibility for allowing the Disengagement to take place, and thus allowed for a creation of  "disconnect" between the Land of Israel and the People of Israel – will now betray the Torah of Israel, and encourage a "disconnect" between the nation the Torah.

To be clear, I am not a fan of the worldview of the Lithuanian "Haredi" community.  I am not a proponent of the current Yeshiva world mentality, and I find it difficult to think that the final redemption will be realized through their agency.   In fact, I suspect that they are doing their best, consciously or not, to delay the final redemption as long as possible. 

That said, Bayit Yehudi is on the wrong side of the battle in the current political maelstrom.  For, let's be honest, the debate isn't about the red herring of "equal burden," but rather about making the Torah subservient to the state. 

The arguments, about funding, equal burden etc. are ALL red herrings, a thinly veiled ruse for the central argument of trying to force a certain sector that's scaring the pants off all the other sectors, to accept the VALUES and lifestyle of those other sectors. It's a continuation of trying to "Israelize" the Jew.

This is a battle that Mafdal/NRP had already conceded, at least in terms of the Land of Israel, as well as many other issues such as the forcing of young man to listen to a woman sing. 

And, now, they want force the Haredim to also accept such a worldview, and it is using the issue of army service (of which Bennett himself has already said is too big to be effective) to coerce them to accept it.   Worse, Bennett has brought the Mafdal/NRP into an alliance with a figure who, though in professed love not hate, denies the very principles and values for which it supposedly stands.  Lapid has clearly stated he doesn't just want to break the Haredi "monopoly" on Torah, but the Orthodox hegemony one as well.  And having surrendered their ideals to expediency (just as they were with the Disengagement), Mafdal/NRP will be powerless to stop him.

To Vote or Not To Vote; Is that Really the Question

“By Not Voting, One is Voting for the Left.” That’s what all the big banners in the settlements state. Yet, to my mind, if one votes, no matter whom one votes for, one is also “Choosing the Left.” There is no qualitative difference between the so-called Left and Right of Israeli politics. Even “Katzaleh” will recommend to Peres that Netanyahu should be the Prime Minister. So a vote for the National Union, or any other party on the “right,” is a vote for Binyamin Netanyahu.

I don’t want to choose Netanyahu to be my leader. He isn’t any different from Sharon, Barak, Livni, or Yossi Sarid. He differs only in style. None of those leaders understood what it means to lead a Jewish nation. Frankly none of the candidates for Prime Minister, past or present want to be the leader of a Jewish nation. In fact, such a concept scares them, and is an anathema to their lives.

"Oh,” you’ll say, “We need to work with what has a real chance. We need to make the best of a ‘less than ideal’ situation.” Many people fear that a “left wing” politician will make political concessions that a “right wing” politician won’t. History proves otherwise. The reality might be that only a hawkish politician would have the clout to make real concessions. That’s what happened with stalwart “hawks” like Begin, Rabin, Netanyahu and Sharon. Netanyahu’s only saving grace might be that he is not considered hawkish enough to give away our national inheritance. He’s already used his clout when he gave away most of the hills surrounding Hebron. However, given his values, I’m sure he’ll find a way to “make a deal,” clout or no.

"Yes but, what about hishtdadlut?” the religious apologetic will intone. “Aren’t we obligated to make an effort in this world?” “Hishtadlut,” the battle cry of the religious movers and shakers seems to stop all other arguments in their tracks. For every red blooded Jew who dons a kipah or wears a skirt knows that we are obligated, actually religiously mandated, to make an effort in this world. “Act as if it all depends upon you, while recognizing that it is all in His hands.”

Yet, this true Torah concept, when not bandied about as a slogan, is the religious man’s pitfall. For true “hishtadlut” is only mandated when it is in consonance with the goal, and does not conflict with HaShem’s Will. Any effort that violates His Will, or even skews our achievement of the goal, would be, at best, misdirected energy - wasted seed. At worst, it would be akin to serving false idols.

The effort does not bring the goal. To suggest otherwise would be a blasphemy. We are required to strive, but the results are not a direct result of our efforts. We do not flip a switch, turn a dial and get the result that we seek. I can make every effort, strive with all my strength, and still not achieve the desired results if He does not Will it, even if the reality of the situation would suggest otherwise. At the same time, I can make minimal effort, or strive through non-corporeal means, and if He Wills, then the results will come. That is the essence of Faith. Our actions do have an effect, but their effect is in and on the Heavenly Court. Results, or more precisely the perceived results of our actions, are purely His domain.

Therefore, it is very important that my efforts are in consonance with Torah values. I need to conform my will to His Will. The more successful I am in doing so, the greater the chance will be that HaShem will bring about a realization of the goal.

And what is the goal, when we are talking about establishing political leadership?

As a Torah observant Jew, the goal is not a quasi-democratic judicial oligarchy that is ambiguous at best, and hostile at worst (more often than not), to Jewish values.

The goal is a realization of HaShem’s Will for His People as stated in the Torah. While it’s possible that the details of such a realization are open to form and function, it minimally consists of society that promotes its own realization as a Jewish Nation, and not merely a nation, whose majority is Jewish. The goal is a leadership whose decisions and legislation is consistent with Torah values, and certainly not antagonistic to those values. It is not a state of “all of her citizens,” unless of course, all of her citizens are Jewish.

So, in answer to the question, “Are you voting?” my answer is, “yes.” I’m voting for HaShem, for the realization of His Will. I am actively not participating in the State Israel’s national elections. Not out of despair, or lack of concern, but as a purposeful act of faith, and demand, of the Heavenly Court. May my efforts be a ballot cast in favor of true leadership who will redeem our People.