A line in one of the working papers for the recent Jewish People Policy international conference entitled “Jewish Identity and Identification: New Patterns Meanings and Network’s ” captured much of what is wrong with contemporary liberalism. In a section on changing political affiliations and alliances the authors ask whether the Jewish community’s altered material and political circumstance “entail a long-term shift from identification with the have-nots to identification with the haves.”

In other words are Jews about to become conservatives lacking all concern with society’s have-nots. (A full session of the two-day Jewish identity track focused on whether political liberalism still serves as a source of Jewish identification.)

The authors characterize the divide between conservative and liberal as one of concern with the haves or with the have-nots. I would suggest other possible ways to characterize the divide. For instance: Are poor people better served by government hand-outs that foster a culture of dependence (liberal) or by paying jobs that provide the skills and work ethic to escape poverty (conservative)? Is it more virtuous to give other people’s money to the have-nots (liberal) or one’s own money (conservative)? Is the proper goal of government guaranteeing equality of outcomes (liberal) or securing liberty (conservative)?

With the exception of the last each of these characterizations of the liberal/conservative divide — including that of the JPPI authors — is highly tendentious and thus a sure conversation stopper. But I want to focus on that of the JPPI authors both of whom are highly intelligent. To them liberals are “good people” because they care about the less fortunate while conservatives are “bad people” who care only about themselves. (Does that sound like a recent presidential campaign?)

That manner of framing the divide as one between good people and bad ones explains one of the less attractive aspects of contemporary liberalism: its anti-empirical bias. The goal of liberal politics at least for its privileged adherents is self-affirmation of one’s essential goodness; it is a form of self-soothing. The late Oriana Fallaci once described this as the “Goodist” impulse.

Goodists writes Bret Stephens “put a higher premium on their moral intentions than the efficacy of their actions . . . . Above all the Goodists are people who like to be seen to be good.”

Thomas Frank’s What’s Wrong with Kansas poses a question that has always plagued the American left: Why have so many less affluent Americans traditionally lacked class consciousness and proven unresponsive to left-wing nostrums? Don’t they realize that liberal governments would give them more free things?

It does not occur to those posing the question that there are those who would prefer to earn their livelihood than be dependent on government. That is what ourSages mean when they say that a person prefers one kav [of grain] that is product of his own labor over nine kabim of his neighbor.

But there is room for a new conservative genre posing Frank’s question in reverse: How come so many liberal voters — particularly young voters under 30 — fail to recognize the connection between their votes and their desultory life prospects? This group voted almost two to one for President Obama. Yet they are the ones who have suffered most — except black voters — from the economic stagnation of the last four years and they will be the biggest losers from skyrocketing government deficits. Unemployment among 18 to 29 year-olds is 12.7% to 16.7% if one counts those who have given up looking for jobs. Lack of youth employment translates into drastically reduced prospects throughout life because skills acquired in one’s first jobs translate into higher earnings later on.

A full quarter of 18 to 34 year olds have moved back to living with their parents to save money. In another survey only 40% of college graduates say that they are performing work requiring a college degree. As ObamaCare’s penalties on employers who do not provide insurance for full-time workers take effect many of those who currently have jobs will find themselves being transferred to part-time positions. It’s already happening.

The youngest cohort of voters are doubly squeezed. Their present prospects stink and the current generous senior entitlements — Social Security Medicaid and Medicare — will not await them at the other end. TheUSwill be bankrupt long before then. Social Security payments already exceed monies collected. A program designed for a time when few workers lived more than a few years past 65 cannot remain viable as life expectancy is now 20 years longer. In 1960 there were five workers paying into the system for every beneficiary; today the ratio is 2:1.

Nor are the reasons for the current economic stagnation a secret. The so-called “blue model” — high taxation heavy regulation generous pensions for government workers — is defunct. The economic stagnation of the last four years has long characterized every Western European country.Greeceis but the worst basket case. The unemployment rate inSpainamong youth 16 to 24 is now over 50%.

Evidence of the failure of the liberal “blue model” is readily available closer to home. The three largest “blue states” inAmerica—CaliforniaIllinois andNew York— are all shedding businesses and jobs due to their high taxation and heavy regulation. They are also bankrupt. Per capita citizen debt inIllinoisis $9624 topped only byNew York’s $13 840. On a government level Illinoishas $58 billion in debt issued to cover pension fund obligations. Even then retired workers will not collect: The estimated pension plan shortfall is $85 billion even after that huge borrowing.

About the deficit left to the next generation and entitlement reform the president had not one proposal in the just-completed campaign other than higher taxes on those earning over $250000. His proposed tax increases would barely make a dent in deficits but by hitting small business owners hard will again cost jobs. With respect to job creation not a word except for further government subsidies for “green energy” ventures that have produced hundreds of billions in losses over the last four years and produced no new jobs.

Nevertheless the president succeeded in selling himself as more concerned about the average Joe whose median family income has declined about $5000 in the last four years.  

Why worry about facts or one’s future when one can show one’s goodness and concern by voting for the hip Mr. Obama?  

Davening for Mitt?

On US Election Day I added to Shema Koleinu a personal appeal that HaKadosh baruch Hu bring about Mitt Romney’s triumph as I had been doing for some weeks. After davening however it occurred to me that perhaps my prayer was misplaced.

After all implicit in my prayer was the assumption that the election of Mitt Romney would be better for the Jewish people — i.e. for the realization of Hashem’s revelation to the world through His chosen people. It’s one thing for me to write op-ed pieces analyzing the possible consequences of one candidate’s election or another but does Hashem really need to hear my thoughts on which candidate will better advance His plan for the world? He obviously has a great deal more information on that subject than I.

By the time one reaches my age experience has usually shown more than once that our knowledge about what is good for us is indeed very imperfect. We davened for a particular shidduch and it did not happen. But the next shidduch turned out to be our spouse without whom it is impossible to even contemplate how life would have been. Or our prayers were answered — e.g. we got the job we hoped for — and it turned out to be a disaster. And if our knowledge is so imperfect with respect to our own lives how much more with respect to matters affecting the entire world?  

There are some things of course that we know we should daven for — e.g. wisdom health offspring an honest livelihood that the approaching hurricane spare us and turn back out to sea. We may not get the answer for which we hoped. And in such instances we have to remind ourselves that kol d’avid Rachmana l’tav avid. Perhaps we were not worthy. Perhaps there were calculations at play that we cannot know — e.g. this was a case of tzaddik v’ra lo and not tzaddik v’tov lo.

Still not only may we daven for these “goods” but we should daven for them because when the Anshei Knesses HaGadolah established the words of tefillah they revealed what is good in Hashem’s eyes. In other words He wants to shower us and the whole world with these blessings and our task is to pray that He be “able” to do so i.e that we have done what we can to open up His pipelines of blessing to the world. And prayer is one of the ways we open the pipelines.

But I didn’t find any brachos — not even any Torah codes — indicating that HaKadosh baruch Hu wanted Mitt Romney to be president of theUnited States.

So what should I have done? Daven to HaKadosh Baruch Hu that He do whatever He knows to be best for the realization of His plan. That sounds a little silly to me. And if I did not daven what would He do? Act against His plan for the world?  

On the other hand not to daven at all struck me as wrong as well — as if suggesting that these matters are outside of Hashem’s purview.

Perhaps a well-known story involving Rebbe Menachem Mendel ofVitebskand the Baal HaTanya casts some light on this matter. As Napolean’s armies swept across Europe and towardsRussia the former davened fervently for Napolean’s triumph which he saw as part of the war of Gog and Magog. The Baal HaTanya davened equally fervently for the triumph of the hated Czar. As he famously said the freedom and equality Napolean would bring in his wake would be “good for the Jews but bad for Yiddishkeit.”

So was one answered and the other not? Did their tefillos cancel each other out? We have no way of knowing. But it seems to me most likely that both were answered. After having analyzed the situation to the best of their respective abilities each davened to Hashem as part of his hishtadlus. And isn’t that what each of us is supposed to do — recognize that turning to Hashem and praying is often the most important aspect of our hishtadlus?  

[I offer these preliminary ruminations as a solicitation to readers of their own thoughts even (or maybe especially) readers whose prayers were answered on November 6.]