Jews and Politics: What’s the Point?
Over the past few weeks, I have written a number of articles discussing a variety of topics, such as voting, the debt limit and social unrest. Some have accused me of being an operative for the Democratic Party, and questioned the substance of my articles. The point of this week’s article is to lay clear what my intentions are, and what is the point of this section called Jews in Politics.
Let me begin by saying that I am not a Democrat, and although I may work for a Democratic politician – that does not mean I am one as well. You will be quite surprised to learn that at the office there are some moderates and Republicans as well. The reason why these individuals work for a member of the opposing party is because to be a part of national politics you either work for a democrat, or you look for work beyond NYC.
Politics used to be about agendas and party positions, not so much about ideology. In the late ‘90s and under George W. Bush, there were many times both parties put their differences aside to pass legislation that would benefit the nation. However, over the last few years things have dramatically changed. Today, the discussion is no longer about restoring our global image, bringing our troops home or balancing our spending; it’s about winning elections and obtaining power. What we have now is a system where both sides are unwilling to even talk to each other about making the necessary compromises to balance our budget.
Unions, social programs and taxing the rich have been the Democratic focus for years, while Republicans focused on national security, lowering taxes and smaller government. However, each side in their own way has failed.
The excess of unions and social programs has crippled the growth of our economy; we have become so dependent on these programs that should the government attempt to defund them, there would be an outcry against any such measure. Many of us don’t realize it, but these social programs help many of us in a variety of ways, such as financial aid for youth to attend college, and Medicaid and food stamps for families who can’t afford insurance or proper food for their families. What will happen to these families or our youth if these programs disappeared?
National security has taken on a life of its own. Initially, it was designed to defend and provide security for our homeland, but now we have instances where our rights are being violated in the name of national security. For example, the TSA with its manhandling of infants, adults and senior citizens, or the commitment of our troops overseas without a clear reason as to why or for how long they will be there. Although it’s the price we pay for freedom, the question is where to draw the line.
Lowering taxes has its benefits, but how do we expect to pay for our government if we don’t have any form of revenue? If anything, America needs to stop being dependent on government to solve all its problems. For example, if companies are going under it’s not the government’s responsibility to bail them out. Arguing whether we should approve gay marriage or trying to force insurance companies to be more affordable are things the government should not be involved with. Rather, the government is there to make sure American lives are protected from enemies foreign and domestic, and allow us to enjoy our liberty and freedoms.
In conclusion, my essays are meant to show the reader what is important and what is not, and to help the reader be aware of the current state of our union. If you don’t like the way something is, instead of sitting back and criticizing, participate in the conversation and help find permanent solutions. The lesson we can all learn from the current debt fiasco is, that temporary solutions will only cause more problems down the line. We need to take a hard look at ourselves and find ways to make the much needed cuts, and improve the quality of life in this country.
As Theodore Roosevelt once said: “It is not the critic who counts: Not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
Avi Lesches
Good going Avi you make us proud of you
umm?
George W. Bush was not president in the late 90’s it was his father George Herbert Walker (H.W.) Bush
Although a good start in to your “political career” – getting things wrong
Helpful
“Umm,” I don’t believe you understand Avi’s sentence there, let me assist with some simple words you should have understood: he said, “In the late ‘90s and under George W. Bush…” meaning,“In the late 90s and [then] under George W. Bush [in the 00s]…”
He obviously did not mean George HW Bush, who was the president in the late 80s, not the late 90s. A good start in to your Crownheights.info commenting career – getting things wrong.
Maybe you should ask the moderators to erase your post and save you some well-deserved embarrassment.
Anon
#2, he said in the late 90s AND George W. Bush, which can mean that he was attempting to tie-in a decade because there was more than one president then to a specific presidency because people tend to have a knee-jerk reaction and blame President Obama on a lot of things when really, there was a build up.
I enjoyed reading this, found it informative. Thank you for sharing.
Laaniyas Dayti
Shomrei Torah-Umitzvois, if involved in politics, and when voting, should be concerned primarily with rolling back the shmutzike-avira surrounding us and our children. Promiscuity accepted as norm, the gutter concepts of what constitutes marriage, even the absurdity of cheder-kinder in Yerushalayim demonstrating against a parade that celebrates abomination. Where would these children have heard of such a niderikeh level of human existence, were it not for the wise elders who trooped them out to demonstrate. Who was giving the explanation to these pure little minds as to what the issue was all about?
But I have digressed. Which is the party which touts kefirah in the Creation? Who is the party that cherishes promiscuity and hefkerus? Which side of the political spectrum expresses overt anti-semitism, albeit couched in sanctimonious clamor for Palestinian rights, and, at best, equalizes the two side onto a common moral level?. Who are the parties who will defend the incompetent unionized teacher(s) by denying school vouchers? Which party supplied the nation with a president who rewrote the fundamental understanding of what constitutes acceptable intimacy? And did so in public admission and defense. (Those dealing in frum marriage counseling know too well the serious negative impact this has had.)
These are the issues that count for us. The rest is the kool-aid poured out to the short-sighted or brain-blighted, who think they are really discussing, advocating, and even fighting, for human rights. Animal rights and plant rights follow in the footsteps, and deliver unto us such devious vigilantes as PETA.
Shame, shame, shame, on anyone who devotes (key word: “devotes”) him or her self to a Left-wing politician.
For those who are not up to date on the national political scene, it is now emerging that religion is the “red herring” issue Obama supporters will be raising as a negative, to diminish focus on the economy. Stand by and watch, how many times the Right Wing politicians will be asked “Do you believe in evolution>” (Note the word believe. Someone even asked Perry “Do you believe in science?” The answer should have been “Science does not require belief, and anything that does is not (yet) science.”)
The unfotunate issue: Taking government money is a shoychad that covers the issues.
TO: ummm?
Clearly you cant read english. He wrote “In the late ‘90s AND under George W. Bush” TWO seperate presidencies. Next time you rebuke, make sure you’re reading basic english correctly.
yankee
george h w bush wasnt either president in the late 90’s it was clinton. maybe you should also look up the facts before you speak