Thoughts on the new antisemitism - SHORTEST VERSION

 

I just read two recently published books, one about the UK (Jews Don’t Count by David Baddiel)  and the other about the US (Woke Antisemitism by David Bernstein). I highly recommend them both. Perhaps the most notable thing about them, is that they are both written by avowedly “liberal” authors, self-described as “leftist”. But, both, in spite of this, have become completely disillusioned and alarmed by the woke (Progressive) agenda, not least because of its inevitable anti-semitic element.

Baddiel is a well-known British-Jewish comedian/public intellectual. Bernstein is an eminent American-Jewish communal leader. Both became disillusioned over time, especially Bernstein, as they began to realize that the woke folk were not the traditional friends to the Jews that “liberals” had always been. Further, they came to the realization that following the well-worn path of Jewish-liberal alliances would no longer work with the latest brand of “liberalism”. In fact, and this is key, the vigorous attempt by Jewish organizations to curry favor with the organizations adopting one woke principle after another, was not only undermining traditional Jewish values of tolerance and open-mindedness, it was not even working to maintain the alliances regarded as valuable. Instead, these efforts were rebuffed and treated with contempt (for chapter and verse read Bernstein).

In the woke worldview Jews cannot be victims, notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary. The Holocaust was terrible, but it is not relevant to the current environment of “systemic racism” in which Jews are “white adjacent” – part of the privileged white class. (Whiteness has been mystified to go beyond skin color to include a state of being). In fact, Jews, because of their relative success as a group, are an obvious and easy target when it comes to attacking white privilege. They have used their “whiteness” to garner disproportionate numbers in the institutions of power. As Baddiel points out when it comes to anti-semitism, “Jews don’t count” as victims, because they are way down on the hierarchy of racisms. And, by the way, Asians are, likewise, white adjacents, who have benefitted by their token whiteness. They are not included in the club of the oppressed. Indeed, the world is divided into oppressed and oppressor and if you are not part of one you are part of the other. 

An important aspect of this anti-Jewish animus is the uncompromising anti-Israel rage that characterizes the woke folk. Criticism of Israeli government policy absolutely need not be anti-semitic, but, upon close examination, most of it in social media turns out to be grossly anti-semitic. To wit, the distortions that characterize the reporting, the historical misinformation, the singling out of Israel for human rights violations far less egregious than those of its neighbors or, indeed, numerous countries around the world, the insidious allusions to the Jewish character of the Israeli nation and so on. The association of Jews with the demon Israel has done much to make left-wing anti-semitism respectable.

You need not take my word for it. In a short essay I cannot provide the kind of evidence necessary to document the character of wokism and the implications of it for Jews and for Jewish organizations. For that you should read especially Bernstein. Anyone in any position of Jewish leadership should read that book. But, if this is right, if Bernstein is right, then Jews in America and everywhere that wokism is a factor, should understand the fundamentals of wokism and why it is necessary for Jewish organizations to distance themselves from it, and to combat its blatantly illiberal precepts. Those precepts are essentially anti-liberal and anti-Jewish in nature.

Conclusion

Recently, the problem has gotten worse. Jewish students on many campuses are at pains to hide their Jewishness. Jewish organizations have to have security at their events. University administrations have caved to the demand of woke student organizations to adopt their agendas and strike anti-Israel poses. None of this comes from the right-wing.

As I write, as evidenced by the two books referenced here, awareness is growing, but slowly. An effective policy to combat this new anti-semitism, on campus and elsewhere, will depend on a fundamental change in the typical American Jewish mindset. It is a big change, but, one that I actually feel is possible, even likely, given the growing impossibility of denying the obvious.

Thoughts on the new antisemitism - SHORT VERSION

 

      

Newsflash: Its not what you think it is.

A few years ago, I was invited to a meeting at the Jewish Community Center of Dallas – a meeting including a diverse group of local Jewish “leaders” to discuss the problem of antisemitism on university campuses. I was shocked to realize that I may have been the only one in the room who knew what was really going on. I felt that there were new essential elements in the current situation - that we were witnessing a deep cultural shift one that emanated from “the left wing” rather than the "right wing" of the social divide. This was not the usual right-wing variety of antisemitism. 

In fact, over time I have come to realize that the typical American Jewish commitment to all cultural and social aspects of “liberalism” in America was confusing matters and that unless the American Jewish Community at large could be made to see past its obsolete assumptions, no effective response to this new antisemitism would be effective.

When its about the Jews, its not just about the Jews, its not even really about the Jews at all.

The “liberals” are making a big category mistake, a mistake that diverts attention away from the most serious attack on American civil society in a century. The category mistake involves the meaning of “liberal” – a concept, that, in spite of its straightforward origins, has become fraught with confusions and ambiguities. Furthermore, a radical (per)version of what passes as liberalism has abandoned a firm commitment to tolerance, open discussion, and the encouraging of diverse viewpoints. Bias plus intolerance is what we have, gross intolerance of any alternative viewpoints. This is the result of a significant radical change in the character of American “liberalism” – or, more accurately, a change in who gets to set and dominate the “liberal” narrative. It is what we may conveniently refer to as the ”woke revolution”. And, in a nutshell, because of what it essentially is, the woke revolution is what is responsible for the explosion of antisemitism on campus and everywhere else.

If its Woke it ain’t Liberal.

Woke is not liberal. It is the opposite of liberal – in all plausible variations of that term. The ideology known critically as wokism originates not from any liberal source, but, from its antithesis, from a variant of Marxism, known as Critical Theory. Wokism denies the validity of every important aspect of liberalism, most significantly the value of freedom of expression and open inquiry. Modern American “liberals” who have jettisoned the firm commitment to protection of individual property rights, at least still agree on the importance of tolerance of individual viewpoints and the encouragement of civil discussion of alternative viewpoints. As such, they should not seek to make common ground with the Progressives who have embraced the tenets of wokism. Understanding that wokism is illiberal is also the key to understanding why it is responsible for the rise in (this new variant) of antisemitism.

Jews Don’t Count

Wokism, “social justice revolution”, Critical Race Theory, “Anti-racism”, equity, diversity, inclusion, … .and other various components of this new ideology, all seek to articulate an alternate worldview that is antithetical to liberalism and liberal democracy, and to the very foundations of western science. In this worldview, the ideas and perceptions of all individuals are indelibly shaped by their identity, in the original Marxist concept by their social class, but, in this modern variant, by their race. Truth is not objective in the sense we usually understand it. For example, the truth of the “black experience” cannot be understood, therefore should not be described or researched, by anyone who is not black. One has to have access the “lived experience” of the minority group members themselves for this. Hence there can be no legitimate discussion between whites and blacks who disagree about this. 

In this narrative, whites, who live privileged lives, should just shut up about this, unless it is to seek to understand the role that they have played historically, and continue to play, in the ongoing oppression. These are not claims made as an invitation to a discussion, they are dogmas, to be acted upon. Identity (race) determines character. This principle is completely and insidiously destructive of the idea of the uniqueness of the individual. The individual is completely eclipsed by the contours of the group to which she belongs. There is no transcending the nature of one’s group -  one’s racial identity. It is of a type with Marxist class determinism, where class is replaced by race.

According to this, Martin Luther King’s hope for a colorblind society is naïve at best and complicit at worst. The woke agenda, by contrast, seeks to emphasize race, to dethrone and shame whites for benefitting from white supremacy, and remake the entire social system (by massive government intrusions, educational indoctrination challenging all and every “white” shibboleth imaginable). I have yet to find an account of what the new world achieved by this revolution is supposed to look like.

I just read two recently published books, one about the UK (Jews Don’t Count by David Baddiel)  and the other about the US (Woke Antisemitism by David Bernstein). I highly recommend them both. Perhaps the most notable thing about them, is that they are both written by avowedly “liberal” authors, self-described as “leftist”. But, both, in spite of this, have become completely disillusioned and alarmed by the woke (Progressive) agenda, not least because of its inevitable anti-semitic element.

Baddiel is a well-known British-Jewish comedian/public intellectual. Bernstein is an eminent American-Jewish communal leader. Both became disillusioned over time, especially Bernstein, as they began to realize that the woke folk were not the traditional friends to the Jews that “liberals” had always been. Further, they came to the realization that following the well-worn path of Jewish-liberal alliances would no longer work with the latest brand of “liberalism”. In fact, and this is key, the vigorous attempt by Jewish organizations to curry favor with the organizations adopting one woke principle after another, was not only undermining traditional Jewish values of tolerance and open-mindedness, it was not even working to maintain the alliances regarded as valuable. Instead, these efforts were rebuffed and treated with contempt (for chapter and verse read Bernstein).

In the woke worldview Jews cannot be victims, notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary. The Holocaust was terrible, but it is not relevant to the current environment of “systemic racism” in which Jews are “white adjacent” – part of the privileged white class. (Whiteness has been mystified to go beyond skin color to include a state of being). In fact, Jews, because of their relative success as a group, are an obvious and easy target when it comes to attacking white privilege. They have used their “whiteness” to garner disproportionate numbers in the institutions of power. As Baddiel points out when it comes to anti-semitism, “Jews don’t count” as victims, because they are way down on the hierarchy of racisms. And, by the way, Asians are, likewise, white adjacents, who have benefitted by their token whiteness. They are not included in the club of the oppressed. Indeed, the world is divided into oppressed and oppressor and if you are not part of one you are part of the other. 

An important aspect of this anti-Jewish animus is the uncompromising anti-Israel rage that characterizes the woke folk. Criticism of Israeli government policy absolutely need not be anti-semitic, but, upon close examination, most of it in social media turns out to be grossly anti-semitic. To wit, the distortions that characterize the reporting, the historical misinformation, the singling out of Israel for human rights violations far less egregious than those of its neighbors or, indeed, numerous countries around the world, the insidious allusions to the Jewish character of the Israeli nation and so on. The association of Jews with the demon Israel has done much to make left-wing anti-semitism respectable.

You need not take my word for it. In a short essay I cannot provide the kind of evidence necessary to document the character of wokism and the implications of it for Jews and for Jewish organizations. For that you should read especially Bernstein. Anyone in any position of Jewish leadership should read that book. But, if this is right, if Bernstein is right, then Jews in America and everywhere that wokism is a factor, should understand the fundamentals of wokism and why it is necessary for Jewish organizations to distance themselves from it, and to combat its blatantly illiberal precepts. Those precepts are essentially anti-liberal and anti-Jewish in nature.

Conclusion

Recently, the problem has gotten worse. Jewish students on many campuses are at pains to hide their Jewishness. Jewish organizations have to have security at their events. University administrations have caved to the demand of woke student organizations to adopt their agendas and strike anti-Israel poses. None of this comes from the right-wing.

As I write, as evidenced by the two books referenced here, awareness is growing, but slowly. An effective policy to combat this new anti-semitism, on campus and elsewhere, will depend on a fundamental change in the typical American Jewish mindset. It is a big change, but, one that I actually feel is possible, even likely, given the growing impossibility of denying the obvious.

Thoghts on the new antisemitism

 

     

Newsflash: Its not what you think it is.

A few years ago, I was invited to a meeting at the Jewish Community Center of Dallas – a meeting including a diverse group of local Jewish “leaders” to discuss the problem of antisemitism on university campuses. I was invited as a Jewish faculty member at the University of Texas at Dallas. Also present were Jewish faculty from other local schools, the head of the Dallas Jewish Federation and other local Jewish communal bodies, the head of AIPAC (who happened to be from Dallas), Jewish student group staff, a few prominent Jewish business leaders active in community affairs, etc.

I forget who chaired the meeting or even most of the details of what he and what others said. The time was spent going around the table letting everyone have their say – reporting on what they knew and expressing their opinions about what could be done.

At that time, it was becoming apparent that anti-semitism was growing on campuses nationwide, though as yet had not become very visible in Texas. Most of the remarks were vague or silent regarding the causes of this new development and it became clear to me that it was generally assumed that the problem was an increase in the familiar crude right-wing anti-Jewish (anti-black/Hispanic/Asian – you name it) rhetoric and action – crude, rude and violent.

Somewhat shocked I realized that I may have been the only one in the room who knew what was really going on. There may have been others, but nobody was able to articulate what seemed to me were essentially new elements in the current situation. When my turn came I tried, with the limited soundbites allocated to me, to suggest that we were witnessing the surface phenomenon of a much deeper cultural shift that emanated from a different political demographic source, namely, what is commonly identified as “the left wing” of the social divide. My remarks were ignored. This forum was not there to gain a deeper understanding and to form effective responses. It was, rather, a typical exercise in public relations signifying not much at all.

The truth is, if I had been asked to give a thorough analysis of this cultural shift and why it manifested in part in an increase in anti-Jewish animus, I would not have been able to do it. At that time, I had not connected all the dots, nor had I realized the extent of the abiding, stubborn, and frankly naïve, American Jewish commitment to all cultural and social aspects of what is commonly called “liberalism” in America. But, I began to realize that unless the American Jewish Community at large could be made to see past its obsolete assumptions, no effective response to antisemitism would be found. Later, I found out, it was much more serious. The weight of Jewish communal action was actually fueling the problem – making it worse.

When its about the Jews, its not just about the Jews, its not even really about the Jews at all.

In the intervening period, realization has begun to grow, generally, but significantly within the Jewish community that the old categories do not apply. The “liberals” are making a big category mistake, a mistake that diverts attention away from the most serious attack on American civil society in a century. It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing type problem. And unless you see it’s a wolf you may think its your friend, when actually it is about to tear you apart and eat you.

The category mistake involves the meaning of “liberal” – a concept, that, in spite of its straightforward origins, has become fraught with confusions and ambiguities. For starters, it does not mean the same thing in the UK or Australia or Europe that it does here in the US. I should start then by clarifying terms before linking to the real-world problems they can help us understand.  I have realized that progress has been greatly inhibited by semantic confusions leading to debilitating miscommunication.

The most robust, yet confusing, framework for analysis among the American intelligentsia is the “left-right”/” liberal-conservative” divide. This is always ground zero for any political discussion, or for any discussion of social and economic policy. It is reinforced by and is the basis of our unalterable two party system. It has always been wrong and confusing, but, now much moreso than ever.

A serious, but not the most serious, problem is the naïve simplicity of this framework. It reflects gross binary thinking. If you are a “liberal” then anyone who disagrees with what you think is liberal is “conservative”. Equally, if you are a Conservative (with a big C), anyone who disagrees is a “liberal”. The only nuance comes from inserting the term “moderate” as in “moderate liberal” (or centrist liberal), or “moderate conservative”. It is not only binary, it is one dimensional. And once you have decided who fits wear that is all you need to know to know whether they are right or wrong. It is a dumbing down of the political discourse. And the worst of it is that academia, and much of education generally, has bought into this. In terms of this linear left-right spectrum the left outnumbers the right 18-1 in our universities, and the number is much higher in the humanities and social sciences. This, in itself, though at a relative high, would not be so serious, if our institutions of higher learning were still firmly committed to the doctrine of tolerance, open discussion, and the encouraging of diverse viewpoints. Bias plus intolerance, however, is what we have, gross intolerance of any alternative viewpoints. This is the result of a significant radical change in the character of American “liberalism” – or, more accurately, a change in who gets to set and dominate the “liberal” narrative. It is what we may conveniently refer to as the ”woke revolution”. And, in a nutshell, because of what it essentially is, the woke revolution is what is responsible for the explosion of AS on campus and everywhere else.

If its Woke it ain’t Liberal.

The critical literature explaining wokism is huge and is growing – many articles and books exist. I won’t attempt here to provide a complete account of it, but, instead, will concentrate on the essential relevant aspects.

The first thing to note is that woke is not liberal. It is the opposite of liberal – in all plausible variations of that term. Before the label was highjacked, to be a liberal meant you were someone who believed in the sanctity of equal individual human rights, in equal individual freedom. This freedom consists simply of the right to be free in one’s person and property from coercion by others. Since it applies equally to each and every individual, regardless of race, gender, nationality, ethnicity, etc., having freedom does not imply license to complete freedom of action. Any action I take that compromises your body or your property – which would be a violation of your freedom – is prohibited to me. The practical limits of individual freedom are defined by property rights. Property rights include ownership of one’s body and the ownership of any property acquired legitimately by gift or trade. As such, liberalism looks askance at any interference in voluntary transactions.

The details and complexities of this doctrine can be greatly expanded and explained. But, the main point here is to understand that this, broadly speaking, is what liberalism meant, and, many believe, should continue to mean. Its appealing features are associated with its commitment to individual autonomy and equality before the law - the king is subject to the same law as the peasant; on its belief in the sanctity of freedom of expression, association, assembly, the value of diverse opinions, etc.; and to its association with enrichment of the masses. The advent of liberalism (not in its complete ideal form, but, certainly in the most important of its features) ushered in what has been called the Great Enrichment, the explosion of wealth creation in those nations that adopted it. This is undeniable. For most of human history, the vast majority of people were miserably poor and ignorant. Since the rise of liberalism, for the first time (roughly over the last 300 years and picking up speed) the majority of humans do not live in poverty. To be sure, the gains vary greatly between people, but, the gains have been considerable. Commitment to liberalism, properly understood, has been based on its morality and on its massive widely distributed benefits.

Toward the middle of the 19^th century, ideas critical of the foundations of liberalism began to grow in popularity, the most common being the doctrine of socialism. Socialists challenge the most basic ingredient of liberalism, namely, property. They challenge the sanctity and even the meaning of individual property rights. They challenge the notions of equality before the law to protect such property rights, insofar as such protections are seen not to apply to the “wealthy”. Socialists regard unequal outcomes as evidence of injustice, and claim the right, the necessity, to “reform” the distribution of income and wealth to make them equal. The most far-reaching variant of socialism is Marxism, which seeks to abolish private property completely.

These remarks are not meant to persuade as much as to clarify. But, any attempt at persuasion would start with the consequences of implementing policies that involved gross violations of individual property rights, such as those involving extensive government regulation, taxation, and spending to encourage “social justice” outcomes, like socialist countries or those with extensive welfare states. The consequences are that poverty increases and economic growth falls. In the extreme, socialism causes economic collapse and dictatorship. Numerous examples exist. No example of prosperous socialism exists.

But, the important point to make here, is that the ideology known critically as wokism originates not from any liberal source, but, from its antithesis, from a variant of Marxism, known as Critical Theory. Wokism denies the validity of every important aspect of liberalism, most significantly the value of freedom of expression and open inquiry. Modern American “liberals” who have jettisoned the firm commitment to protection of individual property rights, at least still agree on the importance of tolerance of individual viewpoints and the encouragement of civil discussion of such alternative points of view. As such they should not seek to make common ground with the Progressives who have embraced the tenets of wokism. Understanding that wokism is illiberal is also the key to understanding why it is responsible for the rise in (this new variant) of anti-semitism.

Jews Don’t Count

Wokism, “social justice revolution”, Critical Race Theory, “Anti-racism”, equity, diversity, inclusion, … .and other various components of this new ideology, all seek to articulate an alternate worldview that is antithetical to liberalism and liberal democracy, and to the very foundations of western science. In this worldview, the ideas and perceptions of all individuals are indelibly shaped by their identity, in the original Marxist concept by their social class, but, in this modern variant, by their race (- ethnicity, culture, etc., but mainly race). Truth is not objective in the sense we usually understand it. Rather, the truth of the “black experience” or the anguish of gay people, cannot be understood, therefore should not be described or researched, by anyone who is not black or gay respectively – and equivalently for any of the other oppressed minorities usually identified. One had to have access the “lived experience” of the minority group members themselves for this.

So, whites, who live privileged lives, should just shut up about this, unless it is to seek to understand the role that they have played historically, and continue to play, in the ongoing oppression. These are not claims made as an invitation to a discussion, they are dogmas, to be acted upon. Identity determines character. This principle is completely and insidiously destructive of the idea of the uniqueness of the individual. The individual is completely eclipsed by the contours of the group to which she belongs. There is no transcending the nature of one’s group (racial) identity. It is of a type with Marxist class determinism, where class is replaced by race (and other minority designations).

So, Martin Luther King’s hope for a colorblind society is naïve at best and complicit at worst. The woke agenda, by contrast, seeks to emphasize race, to dethrone and shame whites for benefitting from white supremacy, and remake the entire social system (by massive government intrusions, educational indoctrination challenging all and every “white” shibboleth imaginable). I have yet to find an account of what the new world achieved by this revolution is supposed to look like.

The manifold manifestations of wokism and their implications can be found in the vast literature to which I referred. My purpose here is to address their connection to anti-semitism. Published work has begun to appear on this. I just read two recent books, one about the UK (Jews Don’t Count by David Baddiel)  and the other about the US (Woke Antisemitism by David Bernstein). I highly recommend them both. Perhaps the most notable thing about them, is that they are both written by avowedly “liberal” authors, self-described as “leftist”. As such they appear sadly ignorant of the problems associated with the “leftist” agenda in general, to which they remain favorably disposed. But, both, in spite of this, have become completely disillusioned and alarmed by the woke (Progressive) agenda, not least because of its inevitable anti-semitic element.

Baddiel is a well-known British-Jewish comedian/public intellectual. Bernstein is an eminent American-Jewish communal leader. Both became disillusioned over time, especially Bernstein, as they began to realize that the woke folk were not the traditional friends to the Jews that “liberals” had always been. Further, they came to the realization that following the well-worn path of Jewish-liberal alliances would no longer work with the latest brand of “liberalism”. In fact, and this is key, the vigorous attempt by Jewish organizations to curry favor with the organizations adopting one woke principle after another, was not only undermining traditional Jewish values of tolerance and open-mindedness, it was not even working to maintain the alliances regarded as valuable. Instead, these efforts were rebuffed and treated with contempt (for chapter and verse read Bernstein).

In the woke worldview Jews cannot be victims, notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary. The Holocaust was terrible, but it is not relevant to the current environment of “systemic racism” in which Jews are “white adjacent” – part of the privileged white class. (Whiteness has been mystified to go beyond skin color to include a state of being). In fact, Jews, because of their relative success as a group, are an obvious and easy target when it comes to attacking white privilege. They have used their “whiteness” to garner disproportionate numbers in the institutions of power. As Baddiel points out when it comes to anti-semitism, “Jews don’t count” as victims, because they are way down on the hierarchy of racisms. Don’t complain about being oppressed by Jeremy Corbyn or Ye. Your suffering pales into insignificance in this world of systemic racism against blacks, Hispanics and others.  And, by the way, Asians are, likewise, white adjacents, who have benefitted by their token whiteness. No, they are not included in the club of the oppressed. Indeed, the world is divided into oppressed and oppressor and if you are not part of one you are part of the other. 

No small part is played in this anti-Jewish animus by the uncompromising anti-Israel rage that characterizes the woke folk. Criticism of Israeli government policy absolutely need not be anti-semitic, but, upon close examination, most of it in social media turns out to be grossly anti-semitic. To wit, the gross historical distortions that characterize the reporting, the historical misinformation, the singling out of Israel for human rights violations far less egregious than those of its neighbors or, indeed, numerous countries around the world, the insidious allusions to the Jewish character of the Israeli nation and so on. The association of Jews with the demon Israel has done much to make left-wing anti-semitism respectable.

You need not take my word for it. In a short essay I cannot provide the kind of evidence necessary to document the character (caricature?) of wokism and the implications of it for Jews and for Jewish organizations. For that you should read especially Bernstein. Anyone in any position of Jewish leadership should read that book. But, if this is right, if Bernstein is right, then Jews in America and everywhere that wokism is a factor, should understand the fundamentals of wokism and why it is necessary for Jewish organizations to distance themselves from it, and to combat its blatantly illiberal precepts. Those precepts are essentially anti-liberal and anti-Jewish in nature. There is no way to compromise with them. Racial preferences for blacks imply racial discrimination against non-blacks. Cancelling people with critical views is fundamentally anti-democratic. Whenever and wherever freedom in society is compromised, Jews will be targeted. Antisemitism is a litmus test for the degree of intolerance of dissidents in general.

Conclusion

If you have read this far, you will understand why I was at a loss at that community meeting to articulate the nature of the antisemitism that had emerged on campus. Since that time the problem has gotten worse. Jewish students on many campuses are at pains to hide their Jewishness. Jewish organizations have to have security at their events. University administrations have caved to the demand of woke student organizations to adopt their agendas and strike anti-Israel poses. None of this comes from the right-wing. Finally, at my campus, UTD, signs of this have emerged – so far among the student body, not yet endorsed by the administration – which, hopefully, never will.

As I write, as evidenced by the two books referenced here, awareness is beginning to grow. But the anti-woke awakening is still small and slow to grow. In America, an effective policy to combat this new anti-semitism, on campus and elsewhere, will depend on a fundamental change in the typical American Jewish mindset. It is a big change, but, one that I actually feel is possible, even likely, given the growing impossibility of denying the obvious.

Today's musing minute: It's not rocket science, actually its simple economics.

 THE FUNDAMENTAL ASSYMETRY BETWEEN PRIVATE AND GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS

Competition in the private property market economy tends to harmonize private and public interests. People acting in pursuit of their own private economic interest are led as if by an "invisible hand" to serve other people's needs and desires. The result is a spontaneous order - the result of human action but not human design.

The same cannot be said about the public sector. Where people work for the government and various levels they are not led automatically to serve the needs of others (the public) by any kind of market signals. Public sector services do not have prices. There is no bottom line except for the ability to pay for the those services with taxes. There are, in short, serious knowledge and incentive problems. There is an assymetry in this between the private and the public sector. Workers in the public sector are not automatically accountable to the public like private sector workers are to consumers.

THE FUNDAMENTAL DILEMMA OF GOVERNANCE

For that reason government tends to produce waste and corruption. This is more likely the larger government is and the more centralized it is. The Founders of America understood this and provided for the separation of powers at each level of government and for decentralization of powers between the federal and state governments. James Madison, the scribe for the Constitutional Convention, and the third president of the United States famously described the problem as follows:

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

PAYING FOR GOVERNMENT

In order to finance the functions of government taxes must be raised. These taxes are used to produce public services and also for anti-poverty subsidies. All taxes and subsidies create inefficiencies. Some argue that they can be used to counter cases of 'market failure'. Logically speaking maybe. But, as a practical matter for this to work, the extent of the market failure must be known, the extent of the 'government failure' produced by the tax or subsidy must be known, and the two must be weighed. In reality, it is probably more efficient in terms of value created and destroyed to deal with 'market failures' in other ways.

3 Commen

RIP Queen Elizabeth, woman of character

 

I have been trying to articulate how I have been feeling about the death of Queen Elizabeth.  I miss the opportunity to discuss this with my dear friend Steve Horwitz. He would, I suspect, not be completely sympathetic. He was critical of the monarchy as an irrelevant state funded institution.  In principle I agree. And, to be sure, historically speaking monarchies and monarchs were mostly evil - self serving, ruthless and power-hungry. But, the UK was perhaps the first to completely transform this institution into a symbolic one. The monarch became the symbolic head of state charged with carrying out and preserving age-old traditions. I suppose one of the purposes of this is to create a sense of continuity in a confusingly changing world. And, after all, in terms of state expenditure, relative to the massive government budget, it is a matter of pennies.  As a symbolic figure, the monarch's contribution must then be one of character. She must project the personality and the values that enrich the moral fiber of the nation. Queen Elizabeth did this superbly. Like all of us, save for very few, I did not know her as a person. We cannot really know if, as an individual, she was generous, compassionate, empathetic, tolerant or always kept her promises to her loved ones. We know only what we saw, what we were meant to see. And what we saw was a woman of impeccable dignity, of profound eloquence, of great strength of character, someone who presented as an "internationalist" who extolled the values of "the parliamentary system and the rights of man" for all citizens of the world, of all faiths, of all origins.  She valued her role as the head of the British Commonwealth, the legacy of an often violent and grasping Empire, and strove to make it into a voluntary international association of peaceful nations dedicated to those British values and institutions that made large sections of the world prosperous. That the reality did not match up was not owing to anything she did or said.  Thus, I justify the sadness I feel at her passing. She was a symbol during my parents generation, and during all of my life. Her passing is the passing of that world. It is unsettling.  In the meantime we celebrate her amazing life. She did not ask for the monarchy - personally or as an institution. But, being thrust into it she held fast for over 70 years to what she firmly believed was her duty. How many people could do that?

 

The denial of school choice is, in fact, a denial of religious freedom.

 

I return to the subject of religion – specifically its role in society and in education in particular. But my argument comes not from any particular religious partisanship. To understand my motivation better please see the expansive disclaimer that appears below the text at the * below - better read before proceeding. Those for whom this is irrelevant may skip this.

My prime concern in this musing is education policy in America and how it powerfully discriminates against freedom of religion in education, and thus, by implication, against religious freedom generally.

My claim is that, because of the way public education is set up and regulated in America today, parents who value a significant religious component in their children’s education, are being denied the freedom to choose such an education for them. By “religious component” I mean a curriculum in which the values, practices, norms, as well as the history and development, of a particular religion are taught.

As it stands, two aspects of the structure of public education conspire to deny parents this option, or at least to make it much more expensive than it would otherwise be (effectively, therefore, denying it to those who “cannot afford” it). These two aspects are 1. The fact that public education is produced (not just subsidized) by the government; and 2. Applying an interpretation of the 1^st Amendment to the Constitution that prohibits the teaching of any and all religion in public schools.

I am not competent to comment on the legal niceties of the “establishment clause” of this amendment, which reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … .” however, it is plain that this clause by itself is insufficient to obtain current practice regarding religion in public education. Such practice relies on developed precedents regarding the worthy doctrine of the separation of church (religion) and state.

In simple common-sense terms, this doctrine suggests that it is a violation of the spirit of the Constitution for government to use taxpayer money to promote or favor the practice of any religion over any other, and therefore, government should stay out of religion. Allowing the government to use taxpayer money to promote religious practice or education invites the danger of serious abuse in that the public servants using the money are not the taxpayers who paid the money. This makes eminent sense within the context of government produced education. Parents as taxpayers do not have the ability to directly shape or even influence the religious content of a curriculum produced by government employees, who are accountable not to the parents, but to their administrative superiors and ultimately to some elected school board. Dissatisfied parents have few options. In this context, the ban on religious content may well be construed as protecting parents – ensuring that their children are not educated to a “foreign” religion without their consent.

But, by the same logic, this “protection” also ensures that parents desiring a particular religious education for their children cannot get it in the public school to which their children are zoned. There is no choice among public schools for parents under school zoning. In effect, what this amounts to, it that public schools are run according to the religion of “no religion”. And, indeed, in many parts of the country this is a preferred outcome for those antagonistic to the teaching of any religion whatsoever – the preferred outcome of many modern secular intellectuals hostile to the very idea of organized religion.

The matter could be easily and justly solved by allowing parents to retain discretion of how the taxpayer money used for their child’s education is spent; removing the requirement that the money be used by the government to produce education. In other words, though government would continue to subsidize education, it need not continue to produce it unless that is the preferred choice of enough parents. One form of this would be an educational voucher system, Another would be a tax-credit system. Who could object to this?

Of course, many do object for a variety of spurious reasons. But the one that is relevant here is the objection that claims that allowing such a voucher system violates the principle of church-state separation as required by the 1^st Amendment. My claim, and that of many much more knowledgeable than I, including many legal experts, including some court decisions, is that this is false. Courts have held that the separation doctrine is not violated by the parents’ exercise of a choice to educate their child in a manner including a religious component as long as that is one of many options among which the parent may choose, thus ensuring that there is no compulsion involved. Arguments to the contrary are predicated on the notion that somehow that money cannot be construed as “belonging” to the parents. It is “public” money. To argue thus seems to make a mockery of the fact that the money is intended to educate the parent’s child, yet to argue that the parent should not have any direct say in how the child is educated. After all, the parent pays the tax for the express purpose of this education.

But, I would argue further, this setup effectively denies the parent a crucial component of religious freedom, namely, the freedom to use his money to educate his child as he sees fit according to his chosen religion. Far from being a consequence of the 1^st Amendment, it appears to my untrained mind, to be a gross violation of it, significantly impeding the “establishment” of religion by making the education of it significantly more expensive.

The implications of this are enormous. Quite simply it has meant the hobbling of all religious education in America by forcing those parents who want it to pay for it twice – once in the form of taxes and once in the form of alarmingly expensive tuition in private religious schools. The business model of such schools, having to compete with the “free” education available in the public school is seriously compromised. Public schools, in effect, are protected monopolies against which private religious schools cannot compete, especially and tragically for lower income families.

The enormity of this can be gauged by imagining the boost that private religious schools would get under a voucher system allowing a chosen religious school to earn the taxpayer money earmarked for a child’s education (as long as state secular curriculum requirements were fulfilled). It would herald a revolutionary transformation of religious education in America.

Parents who want affordable quality education for their children that includes a religious component, and those who support their right to choose this option, would do well to understand the implications of the current system and work to reform it to allow universal school choice, starting with their own particular school district.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*disclaimer:

At the outset I need to issue a disclaimer. I carry no banner for organized religion of any kind. Though I feel a strong Jewish identity, which is undoubtedly connected to the religion, I myself am not at all religious in the usual sense of the word. I am, strictly speaking, agnostic with respect to some of the factual claims of the religion and a complete disbeliever with respect to most of them. With regard to the moral authority claimed by its teachings, I see none. I judge the moral status of those teachings from an external standard of my own – my own moral conscience.

With regard to the value of religion in society (a big subject) I see both pros and cons. Clearly, the human inclination to be religious (to believe in some external guiding spirit that is the source of morality, of security, of justice and so on) is extremely powerful and universal. One finds it in all places at all times, to a greater or lesser extent – the current era perhaps being one in which a greater proportion of people can claim to be without religion than ever before – justifying its identification as a unique secular period in human history.

Personally, I find this easy to understand, yet, at the same time, being irreligious, extremely puzzling. It is easy to understand because this is a frightening and bewildering world in which there is comfort to be gained from the knowledge that there is a purpose to life that is determined and guided by a benevolent higher power. I understand and sympathize with this belief. I almost wish I could share it. However, there is a wide gap between the desire to believe something and the ability to believe it. I find it impossible to understand how very intelligent, rational people can believe unbelievable things – and there are many in that category – a belief impervious to compelling contrary evidence.

The pros and cons of religion can be summed up in the observation that, when religion is a matter of free choice, it works powerfully in favor of social harmony, stability and creativity; but when it is a matter of compulsion it is a source of great evil and destruction.

Religion is the source of much artistic and philosophical richness. It provides the social support and guidance for individuals to cope with the challenges of this world. It has always been an important manifestation of a crucial “tribal solidarity”. And, where it is a matter of voluntary affiliation, with freedom to enter and exit unmolested, its value is inestimable. I say this not as an endorsement of everything in organized religion (or of the Jewish religion in particular). In terms of my own moral code, there are many aspects of religious teaching that I regard as repugnant and socially dysfunctional – and many as matters of annoying superstition. But, unless coercion is involved I regard these as matters of private choice and not as socially destructive.

On the other hand, whenever religion has allied with political power it has been an overwhelmingly destructive force. Throughout history, it has been the cause or the excuse (or, in part, both) of war, oppression and brutality. The tyrannical impulse derives much power from the ability to claim to be implementing the word of god (Communism invented its own “secular god” which proved, perhaps surprisingly, to be just as powerful). The most powerful modern-day manifestation of this is Islamist fundamentalism. It is no accident that the European Enlightenment and the Age of Reason that emerged in Renaissance Europe took the predominant form of the fight for religious freedom.

So, I am the furthest thing you can imagine from a religious fanatic, or even a mildly religious enthusiast looking to promote acceptance of its teachings. My concern comes from a completely different place. It comes rather from a powerful belief in the importance of religious freedom. I favor an education inclusive of religious history and doctrine. We should know our heritage, its riches, its evolution, for better or for worse, and, as free critical thinkers should decide for ourselves how we feel about it.

An interesting new series about Abraham Lincoln