Last part of the rabbi's analysis of the November election

Obama also knows that the electorate has changed – that whites will soon be a minority in America (they’re already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted immigrants in the 19^th and 20^th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America. Obama is part of that different America, knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won.


Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his “negative ads” were simple facts, never personal abuse – facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil’s bargain of making unsustainable promises, and by talking as the adult and not the adolescent. Obama has spent the last six years campaigning; even his governance has been focused on payoffs to his favored interest groups. The permanent campaign also won again, to the detriment of American life.


It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan – people of substance, depth and ideas – to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy – of class warfare – never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups. Conservative ideas failed to take root and states that seemed winnable, and amenable to traditional American values, have simply disappeared from the map. If an Obama could not be defeated – with his record and his vision of America, in which free stuff seduces voters – it is hard to envision any change in the future. The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy – those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe – is paved.


A second cliché that should be retired is that America is a center-right country. It clearly is not. It is a divided country with peculiar voting patterns, and an appetite for free stuff. Studies will invariably show that Republicans in Congress received more total votes than Democrats in Congress, but that means little. The House of Representatives is not truly representative of the country. That people would vote for a Republican Congressmen or Senator and then Obama for President would tend to reinforce point two above: the empty-headedness of the electorate. Americans revile Congress but love their individual Congressmen. Go figure.


The mass media’s complicity in Obama’s re-election cannot be denied. One example suffices. In 2004, CBS News forged a letter in order to imply that President Bush did not fulfill his Air National Guard service during the Vietnam War, all to impugn Bush and impair his re-election prospects. In 2012, President Obama insisted – famously – during the second debate that he had stated all along that the Arab attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi was “terror” (a lie that Romney fumbled and failed to exploit). Yet, CBS News sat on a tape of an interview with Obama in which Obama specifically avoided and rejected the claim of terrorism – on the day after the attack – clinging to the canard about the video. (This snippet of a “60 Minutes” interview was not revealed  - until two days ago!) In effect, CBS News fabricated evidence in order to harm a Republican president, and suppressed evidence in order to help a Democratic president. Simply shameful, as was the media’s disregard of any scandal or story that could have jeopardized the Obama re-election.


One of the more irritating aspects of this campaign was its limited focus, odd in light of the billions of dollars spent. Only a few states were contested, a strategy that Romney adopted, and that clearly failed. The Democrat begins any race with a substantial advantage. The liberal states – like the bankrupt California and Illinois – and other states with large concentrations of minority voters as well as an extensive welfare apparatus, like New York, New Jersey and others – give any Democratic candidate an almost insurmountable edge in electoral votes. In New Jersey, for example, it literally does not pay for a conservative to vote. It is not worth the fuel expended driving to the polls. As some economists have pointed generally, and it resonates here even more, the odds are greater that a voter will be killed in a traffic accident on his way to the polls than that his vote will make a difference in the election. It is an irrational act. That most states are uncompetitive means that people are not amenable to new ideas, or new thinking, or even having an open mind. If that does not change, and it is hard to see how it can change, then the die is cast. America is not what it was, and will never be again. . . .


The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline. Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come. Across the world, America under Bush was feared but not respected. Under Obama, America is neither feared nor respected. Radical Islam has had a banner four years under Obama, and its prospects for future growth look excellent. The “Occupy” riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead – years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution . . .


If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back.

More from a rabbi about the election

I have here another section of the rabbi's blog (see my previous blog). It's a longer piece than I can cover reasonably here, so this is just part two with more to follow. I think he's got some good points:

Imagine two restaurants side by side. One sells its customers fine cuisine at a reasonable price, and the other offers a free buffet, all-you-can-eat as long as supplies last. Few – including me – could resist the attraction of the free food. Now imagine that the second restaurant stays in business because the first restaurant is forced to provide it with the food for the free buffet, and we have the current economy, until, at least, the first restaurant decides to go out of business. (Then, the government takes over the provision of free food to its patrons.)

The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation (by the amoral Obama team) of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which “47% of the people” start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money – “free stuff” – from the government. Almost half of the population has no skin in the game – they don’t care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese. They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else’s expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future.

It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.

That suggests the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that, as Winston Churchill stated so tartly, “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Voters – a clear majority – are easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. Said another way, too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich. Obama could get away with saying that “Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules” – without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the “rich should pay their fair share” – without ever defining what a “fair share” is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to “fend for themselves” – without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending. How could Obama get away with such rants to squealing sign-wavers? See Churchill, above.

During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: “Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!” Stevenson called back: “That’s not enough, madam, we need a majority!” Truer words were never spoken.

Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico (even if they came from Cuba or Honduras), and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions – in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the money is gone. How could he do and say all these things ? See Churchill, above.

One might reasonably object that not every Obama supporter could be unintelligent. But they must then rationally explain how the Obama agenda can be paid for, aside from racking up multi-trillion dollar deficits. “Taxing the rich” does not yield even 10% of what is required and does not solve any discernible problem – so what is the answer, i.e., an intelligent answer?

A look back--sad conclusions about the election

I came across this essay that I thought others should see. It reflects my beliefs after the November election. I am discouraged about more than Obama's re-election. I think it says a lot about the state of the nation, and that disturbs me. It's a long piece, so I'm breaking it into two parts. Here's the first:

[Author: Rabbi  Steven Pruzansky, the spiritual leader of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun in Teaneck , New Jersey .]

The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo – for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress.  They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship,
 incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility.

And fewer people voted.

But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the
chattering classes.  Romney did not lose because of the effects of
Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business
cycle.

Romney lost because he didn’t get enough votes to win.

That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate.

The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff.

Every businessman knows this; that is why the “loss leader” or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool.  Obama’s America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who – courtesy of Obama – receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote.  The lure of free stuff is irresistible.

Apologetics at our church

Last week we started our apologetics class for this spring. Something like fifty people showed up at Emmanuel Faith last Thursday for the intro to the class. For several reasons, I'm excited about the next eleven weeks.

For one thing, we switched rooms. In the past we met in a room that seemed designed to be cruel to speakers. There were no lights shining down where the speaker stood, so it was nearly impossible to see notes or read from a text. Many of the chairs were hard plastic, hardly inviting to our attendees. This new room has so much more--better seats, a good mic system, a lectern, and better lighting.

Secondly, we have a lot of new people to add to our repeat attenders. That means we can spread apologetics into even more areas of Escondido and North County. Whether at work, school, or home, we now have more influence for Christ from people excited to discover how many reasons there are to be Christians.

Finally, we have a new format this spring. We (I keep saying "we" because I work with Steve Bruecker) invited several people to share their expertise in apologetics with our group. So far we have fourteen people willing to present solid evidence for the God of the Bible. Wow, who knew that right here in our area there would be so many individuals with the training and interest to share with our class. That was exciting to find out. We know God will do great things when they present information on the truthfulness of Christianity. We hope they are encouraged to continue speaking and that the class will be encouraged to share the good news with others they encounter.

This should be a fun spring. I'm looking forward to the upcoming Thursday evenings.

Retirement?

Someone at work asked me today if I had considered retirement, and, if so, when I was planning to hang up the gradebook. That made me think about my plans.

There are two ways I think I'll know when I should retire. The first is my physical state. If I can't be on my feet, or I suffer from some malady that keeps me from performing my duties as a teacher, then I'll have to quit. I'm so fortunate that my job is not physically demanding. Teaching is easy on the body. I feel sorry for construction workers, for example, who must face severe tests of their bodies as they age. What do I have to handle physically? Hold a marker in my hand, walk around the room, open my mouth, talk, stay awake in department meetings. Actually, the last item may be tougher than the others . . .

 So, how am I doing with this test? God has given me good health so far--I rarely get sick. I occasionally get students asking me if I ever get sick. I thank them for their concern, assuming they really do care about me and are not asking in the hopes of getting a day off. Sure.

The second way I'll know when to retire has to do with my psychological state. If I start waking up and dreading the day ahead, then I should retire. That hasn't happened. For example, this semester I was afraid that my Bible as literature class might not have enough students and would be canceled. I was relieved to finally reach a reasonable number that allowed the class to go. As part of my psychological test, I monitor my reaction to students. I still enjoy getting to know them; I think of them as my own children, facing so many challenges on their way to becoming useful members of our society.

So, when will I retire? Not now. I appreciate my job so much and thank God for the opportunity to teach on the college level.

The new semester

I teach, so I'm always interested in what's being discovered about the students I will be facing, like today when the spring semester started at my college. I came across an article that said young people have an unprecedented level of self-infatuation as revealed in a new analysis of the American Freshman Survey.

Over the last four decades there's been a dramatic rise in the number of students who describe themselves as being 'above average' in the areas of academic ability, drive to achieve, mathematical ability, and self-confidence. Researchers also found a disconnect between the student's opinions of themselves and actual ability. While students are much more likely to call themselves gifted in writing abilities, objective test scores actually show that their writing abilities are far less than those of their 1960s counterparts. I can vouch for that, having seen a ton of papers over the 40+ years I have taught English. 

There's an unpleasant consequence to this for students. A 2006 study found that students suffer from 'ambition inflation' as their increased ambitions accompany increasingly unrealistic expectations. That leads to an increase in anxiety and depression.

This narcissism is often negative and destructive--where does the article lay the blame? Several culprits are easy to point out--parenting styles, celebrity culture, social media, and easy credit.

There was an interesting aspect to this. Despite a library's worth of self-help books promoting the idea we can achieve anything if we believe we can, there's very little evidence that raising self-esteem produces positive, real-world outcomes.

What does matter?  Self-control is much more powerful and well-supported as a cause of personal success. But our society has pushed self-control to the side. It sounds too constricting, so out it goes. The weakening of Christianity and the rise of left-wing, big-government has effectively brought our society to its current flabby morality and lack of personal responsibility. 

The article concludes by saying that narcissistic people mess up their relationships, at home and at work. Though narcissists may be charming at first, their selfish actions eventually damage relationships.  Sound familiar?

Five simple statements

Someone sent me these five statements as part of an email. I thought they were worth passing along. The Obama administration is trying to prove all five of these wrong. We'll see . . . My money is on the wisdom of the statements. I fear this election has brought to light an uncomfortable fact about the United States today--we have changed from self-reliant to government-reliant.

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Pretty simple stuff. A few years ago, most people would have agreed with these five statements. Not any longer.