A Response to Martin Marty and Jacob Neusner on Catholic Prayer

From Sightings 3/10/08

Jacob Neusner on Catholic Prayer

-- Martin E. Marty

A week from Friday is Good Friday, a most solemn day for Christians. It is also a problem day for Jews, and for the evident Christian majority which is (or wants to be) sensitive to the sensibilities of Jews. For centuries the most painful element in the Roman Catholic liturgy came from the Good Friday litany in the Latin Rite, which began: "Let us pray for the perfidious Jews: That Almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord..." There was also reference to "Jewish faithlessness" and "blindness." In 1960 an offended and thoughtful Pope John XXIII deleted "faithless" (perfidis); in 1970 the prayer was radically altered. So far, so good.

Last summer Pope Benedict XVI allowed for reversion to the world and words of pre-1970, to a 1962 Missal version of the liturgy. This act was received ambiguously by American Jewish leadership. The American Jewish Committee expressed "appreciation" for some of the papal steps forward, but the Anti-Defamation League called the pope's action "a theological setback" and a "body blow" to Catholic-Jewish relations. On February 6 the Vatican announced an emendation of the 1962 Missal. Tradition-hungry Catholics will now pray this revision: "Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men…grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved…"

Recently I conversed with a Jewish professor of New Testament at a largely Christian theological school, and expected her to speak of "setback" and "body blow." To my surprise, she said that while all such prayers make Jews uncomfortable, given the painful history we inherit, she thought that the notion of one faith-community praying for the spread of its faith to others was not the highest offense. "Many do it." OK.

Then I chanced on this headline in the Jewish weekly Forward (February 29-March 7): CATHOLICS HAVE A RIGHT TO PRAY FOR US, above an op-ed by veteran Professor Jacob Neusner, a scholar of Judaism uncommonly informed about such matters. His main point will surprise many non-Jews and many Jews as well: "Israel prays for gentiles, so the other monotheists, the Catholic Church included, have the same right to do the same—and no one should be offended, as many have[.]"

Rabbi Neusner notes that a prayer "for the conversion of 'all the wicked of the earth,' who are 'all the inhabitants of the world,' is recited in normative Judaism not once a year, but every day." He quotes several passages from standard Jewish liturgies, which "leave no doubt that when holy Israel assembles for worship it asks God to illuminate gentiles' hearts." Prayers of both covenanted sets of people have "an eschatological focus and mean to keep the door to salvation open for all peoples. Holy Israel should object to the Catholic prayer no more than Christianity and Islam should take umbrage at the Israelite one."

Whoever thinks that in one short column even Dr. Neusner can deal with all the complexities and subtleties of the subject, or that his will be a last word—it's virtually a first, in the current context—should be ready for many rejoinders, reservations, and qualifications, because much goes on between now and the eschaton, "the fullness of time." Both sets of believers have work to do to express their hopes thoughtfully and to follow them up with empathic acts. But this first word might help make Good Friday more a day of solemn contemplation than of polemics. "It is our duty to praise…"

Alan J. Weisbard wrote (to Sightings):

I read with increasing distress Martin Marty's recent piece in Sightings, headlined "Jacob Neusner on Catholic Prayer."

For what it is worth, Jacob Neusner is regarded by many American Jews as an exceptionally peculiar and idiosyncratic figure. I would be cautious in taking his views as in any way representative of the American Jewish community. He is a serious (and certainly prolific) scholar, and one with an unusual and distinctive history among Jews in relation to Catholic thought. He is certainly entitled to express his views, which should stand or fall on their intellectual merits, and not on his authority as a spokesperson for American Jews.

To present American Jews as having a mixed or "ambiguous" reception to the Vatican's recent actions on the Good Friday prayers (as Professor Marty does) is grossly misleading. Opinion is strong and virtually unanimous in opposition to Pope Benedict's marked backsliding from the considerable progress in Jewish-Catholic relations since Vatican II. Such disagreement as does exist reflects differences in degree as to the extent of harm done and its long term consequences, not to the fact of harm, and, perhaps, tactical considerations by some of those engaged in long-term interfaith efforts.

The Hebrew prayer being referred to, the "Aleynu", does not call for conversion of all gentiles to Judaism; it does privilege monotheistic faiths and reject what Judaism regards as idolatry. Normative Judaism has never viewed Islam as idolatrous. There have been varying interpretations over time on whether Christian worship before images or representations of Jesus constitute idolatrous practice, and whether Catholic concepts of the Trinity are consistent with, or violative of, Jewish notions of monotheism. For the most part, normative Jewish views in recent centuries have come to regard Christian faith as monotheistic.

The Aleynu prayer has a checkered history, and certain offensive passages have been--in my view, quite properly-- excised from the currently normative version of the text--much as Jews would prefer in the Good Friday Latin liturgy. Even in its current form, many liberal Jews (and some Jewish denominations), contra Neusner, choose to further modify the written or spoken text in a number of respects, rejecting some (but not all) of the problematic passages cited by Professor Neusner, and reinterpreting others.

To the degree that Jews, Christians and Muslims (in my view properly) understand themselves as worshiping the same God (in the Christian case, God the Father), the current "Aleynu" text, calling on all humankind to invoke, worship, and give honor to God's glorious name, is, contra Neusner (and apparently Marty), far from fully parallel to the revised language in the Latin prayer, "Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men…grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved…" It is revealing that Professor Neusner declines even to cite the "that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men" in his mistaken missive. Jewish concern does not focus on the Catholic prayer's language that "God ...may illuminate their hearts" (which Neusner stresses, correctly, as a parallel theme to the Jewish prayer language), but on the explicit rejection of the validity of Jewish belief in favor of acceptance of Jesus' divinity and the exclusivity of the Christian path to salvation.

Professor Neusner's theological musings are shockingly insensitive to the historical dimension of Good Friday prayers, and the significance of post-Holocaust (and particularly post Vatican II) efforts to chart a new and less destructive course. Judaism does not have much of a recent (say, the past couple of thousand years) history of oppressing, proselytizing or forcing conversions to Judaism by Catholics, other Christians, Muslims, or members of other (non-Abrahamic) faiths. These deep historical patterns provide an essential context for evaluating the parallels, and non-parallels, in the respective prayers, and for assessing the impact of this distressing retreat from the post-Vatican II commitment to healing the rifts between Catholics and Jews. At best, with the Vatican's deletion of the adjective "perfidious" as applied to Jews, this is an instance of one step forward, two steps back.

Professor Marty's essay ends, "It is our duty to praise...". I would fill in his ellipsis as follows: "...that which is worthy of praise."

That's some writer's block

From New York Times Book Review:

From a review of The Fortune Cookie Chronicles, by Jennifer 8. Lee, on a subject close to my heart:

Intrigued by the Powerball drawing of March 30, 2005, which produced an inordinate quantity of winning lottery tickets because the lucky numbers had turned up in fortune cookies all around the country, Lee rides her obsession on a three-year, 42-state, 23-country journey during which she discovers that fortune cookies, like so much about America’s Chinese restaurants, aren’t really Chinese. They originated in 19th-century Japan and were sold in Japanese confectionery shops in San Francisco until World War II, when Japanese-Americans were interned, at which point Chinese entrepreneurs took over the business. Lee tracks down Donald Lau, who spent a decade writing fortunes for the biggest cookie manufacturer until he suffered writer’s block and had to retire in 1995.

On, Wisconsin: "that godforsaken New York cheese..."

Many campus movements aim to boycott certain products. In Wisconsin, a state representative has introduced legislation that would bar any University of Wisconsin campus or state agency acting on behalf of a campus from purchasing cheese or “prepared food product” containing cheese — unless all of the cheese is manufactured or processed in Wisconsin. An aide to State Rep. Jeff Smith, the sponsor, said that while no data are available, the lawmaker has confirmed that some Wisconsin campuses are serving out-of-state cheese. Student opinion appears to be divided — at least judging unscientifically from op-eds in The Badger Herald of the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Bassey Etim, a senior, in a column called “Wisconsin cheese not just about pride; it affects the whole damn planet,” argues that buying out-of-state cheese reflects the waste of American society where food is shipped thousands of miles away while local products are overlooked. Etim also does cite the pride factor, writing that “when visiting Dairy State-funded universities, no one expects to eat Californian or that godforsaken New York cheese.” But Tim Williams, another senior, argues in “No matter how tasty, cheese won’t solve problems” that giving Wisconsin cheese producers a monopoly is inappropriate, and that the state and its university system have more serious needs than giving more of an edge to the home-state dairy industry. Williams offers this advice: “Wear the cheesehead with pride, Wisconsin — just as long as there’s a brain underneath.”

How might we count the ways in which this proposal might be unconstitutional, contrary to treaty obligations, otherwise illegal, or just plain dumb?

Long time Wisconsinites might recall prior state legislation, no longer in effect, forbidding oleomargarine sold in this State (in competition with pure Wisconsin butter) to be colored yellow. I am told there was a robust commerce in independently-sold yellow food coloring at the time.

Bush Aide Resigns Over Plagiarism - New York Times

New York Times:

WASHINGTON — A longtime aide to President Bush who wrote occasional guest columns for his hometown newspaper resigned on Friday evening after admitting that he had repeatedly plagiarized from other writers....

The aide, Tim Goeglein, had worked for Mr. Bush since 2001, as a liaison to social and religious conservatives, an important component of the president’s political base. Mr. Goeglein was influential in decisions on a range of questions important to that constituency, including stem cell research, abortion and faith-based initiatives.

You really can't make these things up!

Attacks Widen Rift Between Gaza and Israel

From The New York Times:
Among the militants killed was Hamza al-Hayya, the son of Khalil al-Hayya, a senior Hamas leader and legislator, the senior Mr. Hayya said. The Israeli Army said the attack was a strike against a squad about to launch rockets. Hamas confirmed that Hamza al-Hayya was leading a rocket squad.

In Gaza, reacting to the news of his son’s death, Khalil al-Hayya said, “I thank God for this gift,” according to The Associated Press, adding, “This is the 10th member of my family to receive the honor of martyrdom.”
*******************

Further comment might seem superfluous. It is hard to imagine progress toward peaceful co-existence amidst such a culture of death. Would that we could all thank God for the opportunity to live together in peace and mutual respect.

Obama on Israel and Jews

There is a lot of trash and slime circulating on the internet regarding Obama's attitudes toward Islam, Israel, and Jews. In the past couple of days, I have received a couple of personally addressed emails, of the form "I saw this on the internet and wondered if it were accurate/ if it were fair/ what you think about this...", followed by what seems to be to constitute hate speech insinuating that Obama is some kind of Manchurian candidate who will do various dastardly things. The claims are so preposterous on their face, and so easy to disprove with a minimum of research, that it is hard not to suspect the motives of those who send such crap around.

I am saddened that some of these hate messages have been attributed to various Jewish groups, including some kind of Republican Jewish group. I am in the process of trying to track this down, and cannot at this point know whether these attributions are correct.

In response, various collections of Obama's statements on Israel are also circulating. Some of these follow the formulaic AIPAC line to a degree that I, as an ally of Israel's peace camp (Peace Now, New Israel Fund, etc.) find them rather unsatisfying both politically and intellectually. However, there is some evidence of more thoughtful views on Obama's part. Here is an excerpt from a recent Obama speech before a Jewish audience, quoted on Nick Kristof's NYT blog:

"...one of the things that struck me when I went to Israel was how much more open the debate was around these issues in Israel than they are sometimes here in the United States. It’s very ironic. I sat down with the head of Israeli security forces and his view of the Palestinians was incredibly nuanced because he’s dealing with these people every day. There’s good and there’s bad, and he was willing to say sometimes we make mistakes and we made this miscalculation and if we are just pressing down on these folks constantly without giving them some prospects for hope, that’s not good for our security situation. There was a very honest, thoughtful debate taking place inside Israel. All of you, I’m sure, have experienced this when you travel there. Understandably, because of the pressure that Israel is under, I think the U.S. pro-Israel community is sometimes a little more protective or concerned about opening up that conversation. But all I’m saying though is that actually ultimately should be our goal, to have that same clear eyed view about how we approach these issues...."

This is very true, and suggests that Obama's understanding is considerably more subtle and nuanced than the uncritical blather that he and most high level American politics are forced to regurgitate on most occasions. I think such an understanding, and the courage to speak it before a Jewish audience, are conducive to effective American intermediation if peace between Israel and her neighbors is ever to come. I am highly aware of the arguments against, but I have come to the conviction that the risks for Israel in seeking peace are less daunting, and less dangerous in the mid-to-long run, than those of not doing so.

And for what it is worth, whether he rejects or denounces Farrakhan, Obama's comments on rebuilding relationships between Jews and African-Americans (and his willingness to denounce anti-Semitism within the black community in speeches to African-American audiences) touch me deeply.

On the Ohio Debate

Politics: Who's winning, who's losing, and why.
Most Improved Debater : In what may be the final debate, Obama shows how he's grown.
By John Dickerson
Posted Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2008, at 8:10 AM ET (Slate)

In the first Democratic primary debate 10 months ago, Hillary Clinton didn't have to charge that Barack Obama wasn't ready to be president on Day One. He did the work for her. He was halting, mumbling, and tentative. The only confidence he instilled was in Clinton. Nineteen debates later, he's improved so much that if he's not ready to be president on Day One, you could imagine he might get there after a little study. At what may be the last debate of the Democratic primary, Obama was commanding, at ease, and magnanimous. Clinton needed him to stumble, and he didn't. He won the night.

I think Dickerson nailed this.

What most astounds me about Obama's performances in the debates is his astonishing capacity for growth. I think last night was his best ever. Not only that--he now looks and feels "Presidential"--fully ready to step into the role "on Day One," as Hillary would have it. His mixture of gravitas, increasing command of the issues (less well displayed in his response on the incoming Russian President--although Hillary muffed that one as well), and gently self-effacing humor (which has, in the last two debates, utterly undermined Clintonian attacks, and made their purveyors look silly)--show his utter sense of command and, for me at least, recall several of JFK's most memorable political talents.

I respect Senator Clinton's policy knowledge and general sense of competence (not always well displayed in her Campaign). I do not want, especially as a male, to employ language suggestive of a sexist critique (and I was thrilled by her coming to the White House in 1992, and by her designation to head the (ill-fated) health care reform effort.) But the more I see of her in this campaign, the less I like her. Part of it is her world-leading sense of entitlement. Part is her increasingly obvious psychological projection, blaming others (including but not limited to Obama) for campaign tactics and motivations in a way that is more revealing of herself (and not in a positive sense) than illuminating about Obama, who is now able to shrug them off as campaign silliness. Senator Clinton is in real danger of making herself look ridiculous. I'll leave it there for now.

On naming Madison's new primary school

It is apparently still possible to send communications on the naming of Madison's new primary school to comments@madison.k12.wi.us. Here is a copy of my contribution:


Thank you for this opportunity to add my voice to those supporting naming our new primary school in memory of Jeff Erlanger.

When the naming issue first emerged a couple of years back, I was one of those who suggested Howard Temin's name. I have the greatest admiration and respect for Prof. Temin, and hope that there will emerge a suitable opportunity to honor him within the Madison School System. If and when consideration is given to naming Madison high schools for individuals, or naming a school with a magnet-type math/science/health orientation, I think his name belongs at the very top of the list. He was a world renown scientist, a dedicated educator at all levels, a great humanitarian, and a wonderful human being that all might seek to emulate. The level of his transcendent scientific achievements might, however, seem a bit distant and beyond reach for some primary school students.

I cannot imagine a more accessible and worthy model for primary school students than Jeff Erlanger. I knew Jeff (and know his family) well, and worked with Jeff on a couple of small projects over the past two decades. What a truly amazing individual. Only at his funeral, however, did I come to realize how many people Jeff had touched, and in what profound ways. Jeff's story is inspiring in a way that touches us all, and is readily understandable to primary school students. My understanding is that he was the first individual with his level of physical disability to be mainstreamed through the Madison public schools. With his resolute, hopeful and optimistic disposition and commitment to live his own life to the full, and to bring and make meaning (and, in a word of the moment, change) through efforts on behalf of others, he set a model for all of us of what a single person can accomplish in this world--a model likely to be especially meaningful to primary school students.

Having listened to several of Jeff's assistants talk about the impact Jeff had on their lives, I am struck by the ways in which Jeff's life turns around our usual narratives of dependency, and enriches our concepts of human interconnection and the ways in which individuals bring meaning into one another's lives.

One final point: the available documentation of Jeff's life, including videos with Mr. Rogers, provide a living legacy that will be pedagogically meaningful for future generations of students who attend this school, and others in the Madison district. It will continue to signify something, beyond a name on the wall, for students who can come to realize what it means, in very personal terms, to attend the Jeff Erlanger School. Jeff will continue to touch and inspire students, much as he did through his all too brief life, lived to the fullest.

Thank you again for this opportunity to contribute to your deliberations....

On The NYT McCain Fiasco

Here is a copy of my response to the now notorious NYT piece on John McCain's lobbyist associations. I sent this on the afternoon of Feb.22, before the appearance of NYT Public Editor Clark Hoyt's column on the same subject. Hoyt came to rather similar conclusions.

To the Editor:

I continue to struggle to make my mind up on this article. I am inclined to wait to see what new facts emerge before reaching any final judgment. My guess--and my hope--is that The Times knows more than it is yet prepared to publish, and that further facts are yet to emerge to fill in the story. If that is incorrect, my judgment will be more harsh.

I appreciate the detailed examination of Senator McCain's contacts with and responsiveness to lobbyists for the rich and powerful of corporate America, particularly given his powerful role as (former) Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. The new wrinkle, given Senator McCain's self-promoted image as a crusading reformer, is that he is apparently so convinced of his personal rectitude that he is largely oblivious to situations that would raise legitimate concerns if they involved others. That is a recipe for disaster, particularly in a potential President. An article effectively raising and shedding light on this issue is clearly justified.

My concern is with the series of decisions made on how to play the "romantic"/sexual innuendo piece of the story. I think this aspect was peripheral, rather than central, to the main focus of the story. While it did, to some degree, advance the central thesis of the story, it was predictable that attention paid to the sexual angle would overwhelm everything else, as has in fact been the case. This was made significantly more likely by the decision to play this issue at the top of the story, despite the lack of harder documentation and identified sources. In an effort to play it cute--or perhaps to avoid legal attack--The Times highlighted the salacious sexual innuendo, with its predictable impact on the privacy of the individuals concerned, while seeking to avoid responsibility for stating and proving its case. The added news value of the suspected romantic relationship seems to me insufficient to justify playing this aspect at the top of the piece, as opposed to leaving it out altogether or running it much deeper in the story, as an illustration of concerns raised by McCain's closeness to lobbyists.

I can imagine a response saying that would amount to burying the lede. But that is precisely my point. If the lede is to be the romantic/sexual allegation, than state your allegation and prove it, using more than anonymous sourcing. If you are unable to do so, and are not able to name your sources or provide more in the way of proof, than this does not belong anywhere near the lede, and perhaps not in the story at all.
Can you explain the news judgment that you feel justifies organizing the story as you did?

On Superdelegates

From a response to Susan Estrich on Superdelegates
This is a somewhat unconventional view from an Obama supporter.

Posted By: The Wise Bard on Tuesday, February 19, 2008

The world has changed quite a bit since the time Susan is discussing. Many more states have elections and broad-scale caucuses. And the complexion of the superdelegates has changed to something more (if not fully) representative of the party, and of America.

There is a long time between the Iowa and New Hampshire contests and the Convention, and as we are learning, things can change quite a lot over the long primary season. Superdelegates provide a useful set of non-pledged delegates who can respond to these changing conditions, including the identity of the opposing major candidate(s) and things learned about the competing Democratic candidates over the long process of testing leading to the conventions. Ideally the superdelegates should stay unpledged until the convention (which many are not currently doing). If their participation in deciding the nominee reeks of a back room deal objectionable to a large faction of voters, the Party and its candidates (beyond the Presidential nominee) are likely to suffer in November--and the superdelegates know that.

And some followup in response to a challenge from another reader:
Posted By: The Wise Bard on Tuesday, February 19, 2008

In response to the gratuitously nasty comments of Mr. Thelen:

A large proportion of the superdelegates are elected officials--elected, that is, by the people, and responsible (and ultimately accountable) to them. Who exactly are the "regular" delegates? Can you name five of them, anywhere in the country? To whom are they accountable, particularly if the Convention goes beyond a first (committed) ballot?



If there were a single national primary, the likelihood of an insurgent candidate successfully challenging the "Establishment" is virtually nil. Insurgent movements build over time (at least if the insurgent is not a billionaire able to self-finance a campaign), and require proving oneself over time, best done in smaller jurisdictions (not necessarily Iowa or N.H.) less dependent on tv commercials and more open to retail-style politics. Obama, for instance, wouldn't have had a prayer of prevailing against Hillary Clinton in a one shot national primary. Tonight, here in Wisconsin (and with my enthusiastic support) he is taking his ninth straight event against the previous establishment favorite. Further, in a Presidential (as opposed to Parliamentary) system, with no "shadow Cabinet", the primary process, over time, provides a useful test of relevant leadership capacities of the candidate and his/her team, and tends to improve their abilities as campaigners and future leaders. That improvement has been evident in the Obama, Clinton, and Edwards campaigns this year, not to speak of the Republicans.

Perhaps we might have a system in which all states follow the same rules, but conduct their primary elections over time, to meet the objections to a single national primary. I would have no great objection to that, but I am inclined to favor a mix of primary elections and caucuses, which seem to do a better job of measuring enthusiasm and depth of commitment of each candidate's supporters, which may also favor insurgent candidacies.

It is also worth noting, contrary to Mr Thelen's initial remarks, that the superdelegates have a potentially significant impact on the ultimate nomination only in cases of close and prolonged contests, not where a candidate clearly prevails in the primary process. We heard little, if anything, about superdelegates in 2004, 2000, 1996...and my memories are not that clear about 1992 or 1988. We have to go back probably to 1984 for a clear instance of their impact.

To be sure, any political mechanism ultimately depends on the behavior of human beings, and can be subverted by bad behavior. My strong preference is that superdelegates withhold public statements of support or endorsement prior to the Convention. My guess this year is that an effort, say, by Clinton forces to "steal" a nomination earned by Obama would be self- (and party-) defeating, much as was the 1968 fiasco--and the superdelegates are likely to understand that. Of course, I could be wrong--and the fact that I can imagine the Clintons pursuing such a strategy is one among many reasons I am supporting Obama.

Posted By: The Wise Bard on Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Here is an interesting piece from Slate on the complexities of superdelegate voting, and the limitations of oversimplistic appeals to pure democracy:



http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/101526/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2184677




















The primary process, like our system of government more generally, is not designed to be a pure democracy, but a more complex mechanism responsive to multiple concerns. The state rules for selecting their delegates vary pretty widely, and test candidates in a variety of ways. If we wanted pure democracy, we would have a national primary. There are some pretty good reasons that we don't.


We might well consider varying strict proportionality (perhaps adopting winner-take-all by Congressional district, not by State), and perhaps reducing the proportion of superdelegates in the overall mix, to reduce the likelihood that superdelegates will have the determinative voice in a close and prolonged primary battle, but I think the flexibility that they add to the process makes some sense, if exercised wisely.

On Clinton vs. Obama on individual adult mandates for health coverage

A number of prominent health care experts, most former officials in the previous Clinton Administration, have lent their support to Senator Clinton's attack on brochures distributed in recent weeks by the Obama campaign, linking the brochure to the infamous "Harry and Louise" ads of 1993-4. The issue is discussed in a posting on the online blog site of The New Republic. Herewith my response:

I strongly favor a single payer financing system with universal coverage for health care. Such a system would not solve all the problems of American health care--no system would. But it would move us closer to universal coverage than any alternative, would provide the best basis for administrative simplification and cost savings , and would provide the strongest basis for controlling high and rapidly rising costs of pharmaceuticals, technology, and fees. The plans advocated by Clinton, Edwards, and Obama don't come close.

As between the variants proposed by Edwards/Clinton and Obama, I prefer the plans with an individual mandate covering both children and adults to one covering children only, and believe that some such arrangement will ultimately be necessary if we move down this particular road. But this is, I think, a matter of timing and a study in grays, not an earth-shattering, epic battle between virtue and vice. An individual mandate is very tough to enforce effectively and without negative side-effects. I am inclined to believe that Hillary's plan would cover somewhat more individuals than Obama's, but both would be vast improvements over existing policy, and neither would effect the major advantages, including but not limited to scope of coverage, of single payer.

The signers of this letter--the vast majority of whom held senior positions in the (first?) Clinton Administration--address the brochure in question devoid of political context. Senator Clinton has been trying to clobber Senator Obama with what is likely an exaggerated version of the coverage limits of his plan, and an exaggerated version of the benefits of hers. She suggests that Obama simply doesn't care about achieving universal coverage, and refuses utterly to credit that he might have plausible policy and political /strategic reasons (looking to the general election, and to the political negotiations that will be required to win Congressional approval for any major health care reform package) for downplaying an (only partially effective) individual adult mandate from the outset. On policy, I am closer to Clinton than to Obama on this point. But politically (in terms of both the general election and future Congressional negotiations), I think it is a tough call, and one well beyond my expertise.

But the relevant point here, I think, is that Hillary has not sought a measured discussion and debate over the complex tradeoffs involved, and has refused to acknowledge that her approach involves some casts and risks as well as benefits. Her approach to Obama has been punishing and demagogic (on a variety of issues, not limited to this one). All purity is with her. It was particularly ironic in the Texas debate when she invoked Social Security and Medicare in favor of her plan and against Obama's, while studiously ignoring the fact that those programs are much more akin to single payer than to any of the Clinton/Edwards/Obama approaches.

Signers, what exactly would you have Obama do in these circumstances? Is Hillary free to say what she will, while Obama is debarred from explaining the factors that led him to make a somewhat different set of tradeoffs in what are fundamentally very similar plans? This sounds all too much like a call for unilateral disarmament, in the tradition of Kerry's inability to respond quickly and effectively to the Republican slime attacks of 2004. Obama needs to show he can and will fight back. Senator Clinton's angry whining in response seems, yet again, a likely instance of her own psychological projection, accusing her opponent of tactics (and motivations) all too present in her own campaign. Signers, I fear that you are at risk of becoming enablers in this regard.

I very much doubt Senator Obama would be distributing a brochure highlighting the tradeoffs implicit in any system of individual mandates had Senator Clinton not placed her central campaign focus (beyond "experience", from which she seems to have learned all too little) on demagoguing a debatable tradeoff in Obama's health policy by accusing him, repeatedly, of indifference to their shared goal of vastly expanding the scope of health coverage.

More (or less?) on individual mandates

In response to a piece by Jules Witcover:

Posted By: The Wise Bard on Saturday, February 23, 2008

I prefer Hillary's version of a universal health plan that would mandate coverage for both children and adults, to Obama's position, at least for the initial stage, to hold back on an adult mandate (which I think will become necessary and inevitable if the core policy wins legislative adoption). But the irony of Hillary's invocation of Social Security and Medicare to support her position is that both are, essentially, single payer systems, and many of their benefits (including very low-cost and reasonably efficient administrative systems) depend upon that. Their universality is in large part responsible for their widespread political support and relative untouchability.

Hillary fiercely resisted single payer in 1993-94, and again in this campaign. I am disappointed that Obama (whom I greatly admire and support) was not more ready to go in that direction.--The Wise Bard

Catching up on old posts to other lists

As per (unsolicited) request:Here are some old comments from The Fray in Slate. Feel free to look up the complete quotes:

*
Re: Honesty about judicial activism
I've blogged extensively on a number of recent decisions. Take a look. This was not the time or place for a comprehensive analysis (and I agree that specifics are appropriate for a more scholarly venue--I haven't noticed much of that here, or on most boards). You are also correct that my posting reflects outrage, although an outrage born of ...
Posted to Jurisprudence by The Wise Bard on July 19, 2007
*
Honesty about judicial activism
It's been a very long time--more or less since 1938--since political liberals/progressives have had this much reason to fear activist courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, or to rethink their commitment to venerating the special legitimacy of judicial action (or the fund of moral capital once possessed by the Court). For me, the ...
Posted to Jurisprudence by The Wise Bard on July 18, 2007
*
Thank you for the discussion
I'd especially like to thank Walter for his exceptionally moving reflections before and after the schools case came down on the real life meanings of segregation and racial difference in this society--truly America's original sin passed down from generation to generation (and thanks for the Charlie Black quote!). I'm not generally such a great ...
Posted to The Breakfast Table by The Wise Bard on June 29, 2007
*
Greenfield on Iowa
I am a long time fan of Jeff Greenfield's reporting and commentary, and I find much of value in his skeptical discussion of the Iowa caucuses (several key points were made previously by Chris Hitchens and the NYT, as Jeff properly acknowledges). I disagree, however, on Jeff's apparent view that secret ballots are an essential constituent of any ...
Posted to Politics by The Wise Bard on January 3, 2008
*
nomination politics
So, a question I continue to ponder: should Louis Brandeis' nomination have been defeated (as it almost was) because of open opposition to his political views, and, let's say, a minority filibuster? Is that a necessary cost of Bazelon's implicit position here? Is it a cost worth paying (or does this presuppose a principled consistency that is ...
Posted to Jurisprudence by The Wise Bard on June 29, 2007
*
Mitt's secret of success
I think he has now perfected the skill--or perhaps the art form-- of looking authentically inauthentic. We need someone willing to say anything to anybody to get ahead. After all, by the odds, he will be right some of the time. A stopped clock is right twice a day. It takes a President of conviction like W to fall below that level.
Posted to Politics by The Wise Bard on January 16, 2008
*
Re: Had to be wrong
I think this is an insult to Aaron Burr. For better or worse, Gore Vidal has an amusing book on the subject.
Posted to Jurisprudence by The Wise Bard on June 29, 2007
*
Kinsley on NYT
Michael, you have written a masterpiece. NYT, QED. --The Wise Bard (H'71).
Posted to Readme by The Wise Bard on February 25, 2008

He's baaaaacccccck!

Hi everyone.
The blog has been on hiatus during my effort to return to teaching.
I was delighted to have one more go at "Bioethics and the Law", trying this time to incorporate my and my family's difficult experiences with several deaths and serious diseases into the more theoretical and formal empirical approaches of prior iterations of the course. It helped, and perhaps forced, me to integrate the cognitive and the felt, the distanced and less personal analysis with the personal experience--both in my own person, and in what I was trying to convey to my students. I am grateful for that opportunity.
Unfortunately, though my spirit was more than willing, my body was weak, and not up to the physical and mental demands of returning to my prior life. I have, sadly, had to return to medical leave, and perhaps to a more permanent decision.
During my time teaching, I confined postings to leaving occasional comments in response to articles on other sites. These were, for the most part, signed as "The Wise Bard", and should (mostly) be searchable that way. I may try to retrieve some of those of continuing interest for reposting here, as time allows.
My intent on coming back to this blog is to focus more on my own comments and less on showcasing articles from elsewhere. While that was fun for a while, and I was pleased to share valuable nuggets I discovered elsewhere with readers of this blog, it proved enormously time consuming, and in the end, squeezed out time and energy for my own (more direct) self-expression. So with this mid-course course correction, let's see where we go.

If voting for Obama is a roll of the dice, as Bill suggests, voting for Billary is a sure bet: an endless soap opera.

Stewart and Colbert to Return

In a statement, the two hosts said they would prefer to return to work with their writers. “If we cannot, we would like to express our ambivalence, but without our writers we are unable to express something as nuanced as ambivalence,” they stated.

Rich Pickings: A vote for faith in America itself

I think Frank Rich's piece in today's NYT gets it exactly right. I have the audacity to hope so:

"...Or is it because Mrs. Clinton’s shrill campaign continues to cast her as Nixon to Mr. Obama’s Kennedy?...

"But it just may be possible that the single biggest boost to the Obama campaign is not white liberal self-congratulation or the Clinton camp’s self-immolation, but the collective nastiness of the Republican field. Just when you think the tone can’t get any uglier, it does. ...

"For those Americans looking for the most unambiguous way to repudiate politicians who are trying to divide the country by faith, ethnicity, sexuality and race, Mr. Obama is nothing if not the most direct shot. After hearing someone like Mitt Romney preach his narrow, exclusionist idea of “Faith in America,” some Americans may simply see a vote for Mr. Obama as a vote for faith in America itself."

May it be so.

An Orthodox rabbi's plea: let's be honest here

2007-10-26


By Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky




The question of whether we could bear a redivision of Jerusalem is a searing and painful one. The Orthodox Union, National Council of Young Israel and a variety of other organizations, including Christian Evangelical ones, are calling upon their constituencies to join them in urging the Israeli government to refrain from any negotiation concerning the status of Jerusalem at all, when and if the Annapolis conference occurs. And last week, as I read one e-mail dispatch after another from these organizations, I became more and more convinced that I could not join their call.

It's not that I would want to see Jerusalem divided. It's rather that the time has come for honesty. Their call to handcuff the government of Israel in this way, their call to deprive it of this negotiating option, reveals that these organizations are not being honest about the situation that we are in, and how it came about. And I cannot support them in this.

These are extremely difficult thoughts for me to share, both because they concern an issue that is emotionally charged, and because people whose friendship I treasure will disagree strongly with me. And also because I am breaking a taboo within my community, the Orthodox Zionist community. "Jerusalem: Israel's Eternally Undivided Capital" is a 40-year old slogan that my community treats with biblical reverence. It is an article of faith, a corollary of the belief in the coming of the Messiah. It is not questioned. But this final reason why it is difficult for me to share these thoughts is also the very reason that I have decided to do so. This is a conversation that desperately needs to begin.

No peace conference between Israel and the Palestinians will ever produce anything positive until both sides have decided to read the story of the last 40 years honestly. On our side, this means being honest about the story of how Israel came to settle civilians in the territories it conquered in 1967, and about the outcomes that this story has generated.

An honest reading of this story reveals that there were voices in the inner circle of the Israeli government in 1967-1968 who warned that settling civilians in conquered territories was probably illegal under international law. But for very understandable reasons -- among them security needs, Zionist ideologies of both the both secular and religious varieties, memories that were 20 years old, and memories that were 3,000 years old -- these voices were overruled. We can identify with many of the ideas that carried the settlement project forward. But the fact remains that it is simply not honest on our part to pretend that the government of Israel didn't know that there was likely a legal problem, or that the government was confident that international conventions did not apply to this situation. That just wouldn't be an honest telling.

An honest reading of the story reveals that the heroes of Israel's wars who became the ministers in its government, who were most responsible for the initial decision to settle, were quite aware that by doing so they were risking conflict with the Arab population that was living there. They were aware that these Arabs would never be invited to become citizens of Israel, and would never have the rights of citizens. Nonetheless, they decided to go forward. Some believed that the economic benefit that would accrue to these Arabs as a result of their interactions with Israelis and Israel would be so great that they wouldn't mind our military and civilian presence among them. Others projected that some sort of diplomatic arrangement would soon be reached with Jordan that would soften the face of what would otherwise be full-blown military occupation. These may have been reasonable projections at the time. But as it turned out, both of them were wrong. And it's not honest to tell the story without acknowledging that we made these mistakes.

The Religious Zionist leadership (similar to today's Evangelical supporters of Israel) made a different judgment, namely that settling the Biblical heartland would further hasten the unfolding of the messianic age. Thus, the Arab population already there was not our problem. God would deal with it. This belief too -- reasonable though it may have seemed at the time -- has also turned out to be wrong. To tell the story honestly, this mistake too must be acknowledged.

And the difference that honest storytelling makes is enormous. When we tell our story honestly, our position at the negotiating table is one that is informed not only by our own needs and desires, but also by our obligations and responsibilities. The latter include the responsibility to -- in some way, in some measure -- fix that which we have done. Also included is the need to recognize that we have some kind of obligation toward the people who have been harmed by our decisions. Honesty in our telling of the story reveals the stark and candid reality that we also need to speak the language of compromise and conciliation. Not only the language of entitlement and demands.

To be sure, I would be horrified and sick if the worst-case division-of-Jerusalem scenario were to materialize. The possibility that the Kotel, the Jewish Quarter or the Temple Mount would return to their former states of Arab sovereignty is unfathomable to me, and I suspect to nearly everyone inside the Israeli government. At the same time though, to insist that the government not talk about Jerusalem at all (including the possibility, for example, of Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods) is to insist that Israel come to the negotiating table telling a dishonest story -- a story in which our side has made no mistakes and no miscalculations, a story in which there is no moral ambiguity in the way we have chosen to rule the people we conquered, a story in which we don't owe anything to anyone. Cries of protest, in particular from organizations that oppose Israel's relinquishing anything at all between the Mediterranean and the Jordan, and which have never offered any alternative solutions to the ones they are protesting against, are rooted in the refusal to read history honestly. And I -- for one -- cannot lend my support to that.

Without a doubt, the Palestinians aren't telling an honest story either. They are not being honest about their record of violence against Jews in the pre-State era, or about the obscene immorality with which they attacked Israeli civilians during the second intifada. They are not being honest about the ways in which their fellow Arabs are responsible for so much of the misery that they -- the Palestinians -- have endured, and they certainly are not being honest about the deep and real historical connection that the Jewish people has to this land and to this holy city. And there will not be peace (and perhaps there should be no peace conference) until they tell an honest story as well. But for us to take the approach that in order to defend and protect ourselves from their dishonest story, we must continue telling our own dishonest story, is to travel a road of unending and unendable conflict. Peace will come only when and if everyone at the table has the courage, the strength, and enough fear of God to tell the story as it really is.

For many decades we have sighed and asked, "When will peace come?" The answer is starkly simple. There will be peace the day after there is truth.



Yosef Kanfesky is rabbi of B'nai David Judea in Los Angeles.

Naomi Chazen

By Naomi Chazan Published: 10/16/2007

JERUSALEM (JTA) -- Uninformed readers of the general American press these days learn only two things about Israel. One is that it is consumed with war and peace. The other is that this small state of 7 million people deploys -- or does not, depending on whom you are reading -- the most powerful, homogenous lobby in Washington, bending the American government’s actions to its interests at will.

American Jews know better, of course. The quest for a fair and sustainable settlement to conflict in the Middle East is indeed central, but the peace process is not the only challenge of Israel’s continuing struggle for survival as the state its founders intended it to be.

Important, too, are issues that define Israel as a society, as a homeland for Jews, as a democracy. In the long run these and related topics will contribute as much as military and diplomatic matters to answering the question of whether Israel will survive another 60 years.

Since serving as deputy speaker of the Knesset, I have spent more of my time on what I call the struggle for Israel’s character. As a democracy with a thriving civil society, there is plenty of scope for argument in Israel over issues ranging from minority rights to religious freedom. However, there are also voices of extremism, intolerance and ultranationalism that threaten not just the Israeli ideal of a liberal, democratic state but the very mechanisms that allow us to fiercely debate the issues that will define our future.

For example, the independence of Israel’s High Court, the most important guarantor of rights in a country without a written constitution, is under siege from right-wingers inside and outside the government who would like to subject it to political manipulation.

The struggle to impede the theocratic objectives of religious parties continues, with progressives working hard just to prevent further encroachment on what should be a firm religion-state divide.

Perhaps most important, and difficult, is the growing chasm between Israel’s Jewish and Arab citizens, as some of the former continue to perpetuate de facto inequality, and the latter react with an increasingly radicalized vision of an Israel bereft of any identifying Jewish characteristics.

Moreover, Israel is a country facing increasing socio-economic discrepancies. The widening gap between the prosperous Israeli center and the struggling peripheries in the Galil and Negev was exacerbated by last summer’s war against Hezbollah in Lebanon and the difficult recovery in the North.

Overall, the prospects for immigrant youth, Israeli Arabs, mizrachim -- citizens from Middle Eastern and North African lands -- residents of development towns, Bedouin and all the other outsiders to Israel’s thriving economy remain severely constricted.

Women confront gender rights issues every day, and not just in the Orthodox and Israeli Arab communities. The disgusting parade of Israeli politicians accused and found guilty of sexual harassment and worse is the most visible indicator of a society struggling to overcome serious problems with patriarchy.

These and similar issues constantly, if not always consciously, affect the relations between Israel and world Jewry. The notion of a single-minded American pro-Israel lobby that only reflects the worldview of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee -- Walt and Mearsheimer notwithstanding -- is ridiculous.

In the next week I will be engaging, along with other Israeli progressive social activists, in a nine-city national conversation sponsored by the New Israel Fund titled “Towards a Progressive Vision for Israel.”

Anyone attending these events for even an hour no doubt would conclude that much of the American Jewish community is to the left of some of its “official” spokesperson organizations, and that this large segment deserves a louder voice on key Israel-related issues.

Achieving a more powerful voice for these Jewish voices in the United States is crucial for two reasons. First, the taboo of criticizing Israel must be broken. The issue is not whether Israel is always right or always wrong, as the current discourse aridly asserts. Rather the question is how to deal constructively and creatively with Israel's very real problems. The debate about Israel must be reframed.

Second, the majority of Israeli citizens -- who have achieved real successes advocating in an open, argumentative, self-critical society -- need support from their American counterparts. When the most visible American backers of Israel are the Likud-fellow-traveler Jewish groups and the Christian right, it is almost impossible to counter those powerful and well-financed voices and the retrogressive values they champion.

Americans, whether Jewish or not, deserve more than a sound-bite understanding of what Israel is and where it may be going. Beyond the heartfelt support that most Americans feel for Israel are real dilemmas for the only fragile yet working democracy in the Middle East.

Most Israelis see the threat of religious ultranationalism, minority repression and economic inequity all too clearly. It is time for true democrats in both Israel and the United States to challenge themselves with the reality of Israel in its 60th year: a vibrant, thriving country still striving for ideals not yet attained.

(Naomi Chazan, former deputy speaker of the Knesset, is professor emerita of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and head of the School of Government and Society at the Academic College of Tel-Aviv-Yaffo. She is a member of the New Israel Fund board of directors.)

Conservatives and Al Gore's Nobel | Campaign for America's Future

Conservatives and Al Gore's Nobel | Campaign for America's Future: "'...the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart.' -- Kurt Vonnegut, Jr."