Project of IISHJ

Month: June 2021

I Want You to Come to Russia With Me

Posted on by Sherwin Wine

The Jewish Humanist, January 1994, Vol. XXX, Number 6

I want you to come to Russia with me. 

Russia is one of the most interesting and exciting countries in the word, especially now that so many changes are taking place.  Once the center of the Communist and Soviet empire, Russia is a troubled free nation struggling to determine its path to survival and success.  Heir to the power of the Tsars and the Bolsheviks, its chief cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg are places of cultural and architectural power. 

The rule of Communism and the victory of Yeltsin have set Russia on a course of dramatic change.  Private industry, private business and private property have now entered into the fabric of Russian life.  Free speech, free religion and free assembly have become the Russian norm.  While most Russians are still poor, some have mastered the new system to become successful.  Communist and fascist  thinking are still strong.  But they are unable to find a working majority, even when they have combined forces. 

St. Petersburg, which has repudiated the name of Leningrad, remains one of the most beautiful cities in the world.  Built by Peter the Great two years after the founding of Detroit, it became the capital of the Russian Empire.  For two centuries the Tsars and the Russian aristocracy lavished their wealth on this northern metropolis by the Baltic Sea.  The result is an inner city of startling palaces, churches and museums which even Bolshevik hostility could not diminish.  The promenade along the Neva is still one of the most extraordinary urban vistas in the world. 

Moscow has been a city of trade and military power for over seven centuries.  Its Kremlin fortress provides a formidable and manificent center to a metropolis which has created successive circular roads around it.  Many Communist monuments still remain, including the tomb of Lenin.  And Stalinist skyscrapers and Brezhev apartments still dominate the landscape.  But the charm of old neighborhoods is being restored, especially the westside Greenwich Village called the Arbat.  Today Moscow is the center of the economic transformation.  Every luxury, Russian or other,   if you have the money.  And the streets are alive with aggressive private enterprise.  The mother city of Russia has gone back to its commercial roots. 

Around Moscow are the wonders of the early Russian state.  Suzdal and Yaroslavl were early rivals to Moscow’s ambitions.  Later they were absorbed into Muscovite ambition.  Magnificently restored, these cities, with their walls, churches and fortresses, represent the patriotic nostalgia which is now spreading all over Russia. 

Russia is also a Jewish country.  From the conquest of the Polish state to the Bolshevik Revolution, the Tsarist Empire encompassed the largest Jewish community of the world.  Many of the members of our congregation are the children and grandchildren of Russian grandparents.  Today Russian Jewry is a traumatized remnant of what was before.  It has been decimated by the Holocaust, by Communist oppression and by emigration.  Some one million Jews survive in Russia, together with another million in the other countries of the former Soviet Union-like the Ukraine and Belarus. 

In the last three years Humanistic Judaism has come to Russia.  An Association of Humanistic Jews has been created, with Simyon Avgustevitch the Education Officer of the Russian Jewish Council, as its president.  Members come from some thirty-five Jewish communities in Russia and from other countries in the former Soviet Union.  Many of them are very young.  While these young people are secular, they are searching to discover what it means to be Jewish.  Deprived of any real connection to their Jewish past by decades of Communist repression, they are enthusiastic to learn all they can about Jewish history and culture.  Only a well-informed disciplined group of Humanistic Jews will be able to offer resistance to the army of Orthodox missionaries who have now descended on the land. 

The emergence of this new association, together with the importance of Russian Jewish liberation, has encouraged The International Federation of Secular Humanistic Jews to hold its Fifth Biennial Conference in Moscow in September of this year. 

The theme of the Conference will be, ”What Does It Mean To Be Jewish” (sic) the very question that most Russian Jews are asking today.  The Conference will begin on Friday evening, September 23 and will conclude on Sunday afternoon, September 25.  The meeting will be an extraordinary opportunity to hear prominent Jewish speakers from four continents and an opportunity to enter into dialogue and friendship with fellow Humanistic Jews from all over the former Soviet Union. 

The International Federation trip is the special way you can get to Russia and the Conference, together with dozens of other Humanistic Jews from North America, Europe and Israel.  At the heart of the trip will be the Conference.  But it will also include nine exciting days touring St. Petersburg and Moscow, visiting historic places, attending artistic events, and tasting the emerging reality of a free Jewish Russia.  The basic trip will last for twelve days, beginning right after Yom Kippur on Sunday, September 17 and returning on Tuesday, September 27.  If you want to linger for a while in Russia or Europe before returning, many options exist.  The officially designated manager of our travel is Connie Wolberg.  She can help you create whatever “package” you want. 

I am anxious to share this experience with you.  This trip to Russia is not only an adventure in travel.  It is especially an expression of our commitment to the future of the Jewish people in Russia and to the outreach of our very own Humanistic Judaism. 

Saddam Hussein in Kuwait

Posted on by Sherwin Wine

The Jewish Humanist, February 1991, Vol. XXVII, Number 7

I am writing this message on January 11, four days before the UN deadline for Saddam Hussein to pull out of Kuwait. 

I do not know what will happen.  I do not know whether Saddam will choose to withdraw from Kuwait or to fight.  I do not know whether there will be war or peace. 

But what I do know is that I support the policy of George Bush (for whom I did not vote) in the Gulf crisis.  No other alternative seems able to do what needs to be done. 

Why do I support the Bush policy? 

I support Bush because Saddam Hussein is a major threat to world order.  The end of the cold War is no guarantee of a peaceful planet.  Ambitious rulers of ambitious Third World countries, armed with the sophisticated weapons of the West, can ultimately prove as provocative and as dangerous as the Soviet Union.  The Muslim world, in particular, dominated by the rival ideologies of religious fundamentalism and national socialism, has the potential for widespread defiance of peaceful coexistence.  The issue is more than oil.  If Saddam Hussein succeeds in holding onto Kuwait and proceeds to develop nuclear weapons, he would have no compunction to use or share, the message will be clear.  Any tinpot dictator, with guts and guns, can do what he chooses to do without any fear of effective reprisal.  The dream of a functioning United Nations, within the framework of a peaceful and disciplined world order, a dream that the end of the Cold War seemed to be turning into a reality, would be completely shattered.  Whether Kuwait was a feudal tyranny or not is completely irrelevant.  It was invaded and annexed against the will of its people. 

I support Bush because he has not chosen to make the punishment of Iraq an exclusively American action.  Not only has he mobilized the support of our traditional allies but he has also secured the endorsement of the United Nations.  The confrontation with Iraq is not an American confrontation.  It is the confrontation of the world community with a recalcitrant nation.  Even many Arab nations have joined this international effort.  The crime of Saddam Hussein is not the violation of American economic interests  The crime of Hussein is against world order and against the United Nations which embodies that ideal.  I am not naive about the Western fear of losing control of critical oil fields.  But I am aware that most actions have more than one motivation.  The American obsession with oil does not diminish the callous rejection of peaceful coexistence engineered by Saddam and his Iraqi devotees. 

I support Bush because economic sanctions will not work to persuade Hussein to withdraw. If there is no military threat, lowered standards of living and deteriorating military equipment will not be sufficient to persuade a fanatic regime to surrender, especially if the Iraqi people see themselves as the vanguard of an Arab resistance movement.  In time holes will open in the embargo circle as the nations of the world weary of their vigil and the Arab people come to revere Saddam as a successful symbol of defiance of “Western Imperialism”.  The threat of military action is not intended to produce war.  It is intended to persuade the adversary to avoid war.  But if there is no military ultimatum, a determined adversary, inured to suffering, will find no reason to change the course of his action. 

I support Bush because waiting for our allies to make equal sacrifices is to abdicate our responsibility.  Whether we like it or not, our role has been and continues to be parental.  Parents cannot afford to be peevish, withdrawing into a corner until the children choose to behave.  It is certainly true that nations like France, Germany and Japan, who will benefit mightily from American sacrifice, ought to be doing more than they are doing.  But their refusal to fulfill their moral responsibilities does not absolve us from fulfilling ours.  Hopefully, in time, our role as the leader of the democratic nations will become less parental and their role will become more mature.  I do not prescribe to a prevailing libeeral critique that American leadership is nothing more than Western Imperialism and that American foreign policy is devoid of any idealism.  On the contrary, despite our many deficiencies, the only great power with any willingness to defend the maintenance of world order has been America.  The invasions of Grenada and Panama were not the invasion of Kuwait.  They enjoyed the overwhelming support of the people of these nations, who viewed the military action as liberation. 

I support Bush because a conflict with Iraq is not the same as the war in Vietnam.  The war in Vietnam was part of the Cold War, a war against the powerful Soviet Union and, therefore, unwinable (sic).  (It is amazing that Saddam chose to invade Kuwait after the Cold War had come to an end and after his Soviet allies were willing to come to his aid.) But Iraq stands virtually alone, devoid of powerful allies and assaulted by hostile Arab powers.  Iraq stands against the world.  Her vulnerability is far greater than Vietnam.  If the legacy of Vietnam in America is that we are no longer willing to engage in any military action short of the defense of American territory from aggressive assault, then the legacy is dangerous.  As the one remaining world power, we have world responsibilities.  The defense of world order is one of them. 

I hope that by the publication of this message Saddam has chosen to withdraw from Kuwait.  If he has, it will be because of the threat of military action.  But if he remains in Kuwait, the military alternative, painful as it appears to be, is the only effective answer to this provocation. 

Whether there is peace or war it is clear that the Gulf crisis is inevitably linked to the Israeli-Palestinian issue in the minds of both our Arab and European allies.  The resolution of the gulf (sic) crisis must ultimately lead to an American initiative, under the aegis of the United Nations, to find a solution to the Arab-Jewish struggle.  The disciplining of Saddam may have positive consequences in other parts of the Middle East and lead to the resolution of other conflicts. 

Gingrich v. Clinton

Posted on by Sherwin Wine

       The Jewish Humanist, February 1996, Vol. XXXII, Number 7

Gingrich v. Clinton.  It is a battle to the finish.  Rarely has political confrontation in America been so intense and so nasty.  No holds barred.  Every opportunity to assault the “enemy” will be used.  Even Hillary is not safe. 

After two frustrating years for the Democrats and Clinton, the Republicans took over Congress in a stunning victory.  Both the House of Representatives and the Senate were in their hands.  Not since the end of World War II had the Republicans tasted such legislative power.  The Democrats were stunned by the size of their defeat and collapsed into depression and disarray.  Clinton was seen as the “kiss of death!” 

The Republican victory produced a new Speaker of the House, who very quickly saw himself as the new leader of America.  The alternative to a weak and discredited president.  His name and face became a popular sign of the “revolution” which he was now planning.  Determined to avoid the compromises of the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations, Gingrich and his 72 ardent new Republican representative wanted nothing more than to undo the legacy of the New Deal.  Sixty years of big government, the welfare states and outrageous defeats would not be replaced by a return to “American values.”  Gingrich called this proposed revolution the “Contract with America.” 

The challenge ws formidable.  Over the last sixty years the American people had grown accustomed to a benevolent government that dispersed a wide variety of benefits from poor relief, food stamps, child support, educational scholarships and health care service to farm subsidies and veterans payments.  Even the prosperous middle class had come to take for granted the comforts of Medicare.  After half a century the welfare state was no longer a radical new idea.  It had become the conservative status quo.  Tearing it down was ironically the work of “radicals.” 

The “radical” posture of the “Gang of 73” confronted old established institutions and expectations.  The radicals of the “Contract with America” proposed to restore the small government free enterprise of pre-New Deal America.  They wanted to eliminate the right of the poor to public support, to decentralize welfare, to substitute “workfare” for handouts, to shrink Medicaid, to make Medicare more expensive and less inclusive, to revise the regulations of environmental protection, to cut educational scholarships, and to close down entire departments of the government.They proposed to attack the enemy of runaway deficits and the threat of federal bankruptcy with the reality of a balanced budget. And they proposed to achieve this balanced budget with a substantial tax cut, which, they asserted a’la (sic) supply-side economics, would serve as a powerful boost to new investment. 

This economic agenda (conservative to some, radical to others) was to be accompanied with a renewal of traditional” American values.”  Quota systems and affirmative action would be rejected. Every American will be encouraged to assume responsibility for his and her life. And the “war against religion” would be terminated with the introduction of prayer into the public schools, a procedure guaranteed to boost ethics and morality among students. 

Despite the formidable obstacles of inertia and political compromise, Gingrich succeeded in turning most of this agenda into Congressional legislation. His determination and passion were greater than Clinton’s two years earlier. His energies were focused and his ability to handle hostility and rejection was more carefully honed than that of the President. He was a powerful leader with a “revolutionary” program, who was able to bring most of his proposals to the very desk of Bill Clinton for the president’s signature.  

Clinton now seized center stage by vetoing the legislation. He presented himself as a “conservative” who was defending the “traditional” rights of all Americans. The government shutdown. The poor protested. The middle class became nervous about the cuts in its benefits. Farmers and veterans had second thoughts about balanced budgets. Clinton’s ratings rose. Gingrich’s ratings fell. The political battle lines for the 1996 election were drawn. 

What does it all mean? 

It means that the political agenda of this country has been written by Gingrich. The idea man is Gingrich. Clinton is responding to the Gingrich initiative.Clinton has offered no clear competing vision. His strength lies in his defense of the status quo.  

It means that Gingrich may lose the election.  But he has won the principle. The principle is that the American budget must be balanced in seven years. Clinton has already made that concession. 

It means that welfare will never be the same again. Even if welfare is not decentralized, even if the guaranteed safety net remains, workfare is the order of the day. Wherever possible, long-run dependency will be replaced by some form of personal responsibility. 

It means that health care reform, the failed effort of the Clinton administration, will be pushed on its way by the cost-cutting moves of the Gingrich initiative. 

It means that the reform of public education will become a central issue for Americans on a federal, state, and local level. With a shortage of educational dollars, the way educational money is invested will become part of a radical new educational re-think. 

It means that if Clintonwins the election in 1996, he will win a platform partially designed by Gingrich. He will simply guarantee that he will do the same thing less abrasively and more compassionately. 

The problems with Gingrich are Legion. He has an unattractive bulldog personality, which always manages to convey the mean side of his character. He is a fighter who does not easily accept the political compromises that are necessary for success. He has tied a classically liberal free enterprise economic proposal to a reactionary social agenda designed by religious fundamentalists. He has naively assumed that the middle class and the elderly rich will easily give up their own welfare benefits. He ignores the fact that our environment needs protection and regulation. 

Above all, Gingrich has undermined the credibility of his balanced budget proposal by advocating a tax cut for the rich at the same time that he proposes removing the safety net for the poor. You cannot persuade the public to accept personal sacrifice unless that sacrifice is equally distributed. 

But the reality remains. The only visible politician with a clear vision of an economic plan for the future is the Intolerable Newt Gingrich. Bill Clinton is a status quo politician with no passionate focus.. 

I will not vote for Gingrich’s party or program because it distributes sacrifice unfairly and because its message of fiscal and personal responsibility is all tied to a reactionary and fundamentalist social agenda. But I recognize creative leadership when I see it.  

What We Can Learn From 1984

Posted on by Sherwin Wine

The Jewish Humanist, January 1985, Vol. XXIIk Number 6

It’s 1985. 

It’s nice to know that the free world is still here and that Orwell’s vision of 1984 has not yet come to pass. 

What can we learn from 1984 (the real one – not the one that Orwell imagined)? What new and interesting things happened during the past year – or what old and important things happened that were reconfirmed by experience? 

In 1984 we learned – or relearned – that people prefer optimism. Political candidates who convey hope have a better chance of winning elections than political candidates who predict doom. The Mondale ‘tell-the-truth-and-face-the-problem’ approach is electorally self-destructive. The masses prefer vague messianic vocabulary to depressing news. Democrats who will run for office in 1985 or 1986 ought to remember that simple reality. 

We learned that elections are won on television. Presidential hopefuls who look bad or awkward on the ‘tube’ have little chance of winning. A crippled Roosevelt or a humorousness Hoover would have had a hard time taking the presidential sweepstakes in 1984. 

We learned that liberals have become politically inept. They have successfully alienated the historic allies that, at one time, gave them the power to win. Blue collar workers, poor whites, eastern and southern Europeans ethnics – many of them no longer feel comfortable in the Democratic party and with the designation ‘liberal.’ 

We learned that not everything Reagan does is wrong. The controversial Grenada Invasion, which overthrew a tyrannical Marxist government, has now yielded a free election and a moderate regime which enjoys public approval. Also the new tax proposals out of the Treasury Department are a commendable series of recommendations. They propose to shift some of the burden of taxation from the individual to the corporation and to eliminate many of the immoral tax loopholes the rich have exploited. For the  so-called party of the rich, the Treasury proposals are refreshingly fair.  

We learned that religion produces the worst terrorists. The suicide bombings of embassies and military installations by Shiite fanatics is a telling refutation of the fundamentalist thesis that religion improves morality. The ‘voice of Allah’ has become the voice of murder. 

We learned that, contrary to the predictions of many skeptics, democracy is not on the decline in the world. In Latin America, where, only a few years ago, right wing dictators and military juntas prevailed, the emergence of new democratic regimes is a startling transformation. Argentina, Uruguay and Panama have already made the change. Brazil and Guatemala are on the way. Perhaps military tyrannies are not the wave of the future. Perhaps there is the possibility of a democratic revival in the third-world countries that have experienced the economic failure of soldier regimes.  

We learned that, contrary to what Jeanne Kirkpatrick of UN fame said, it is possible for left-wing totalitarian regimes to reverse themselves and to become more liberal. China, the largest Communist country in the world, is now engaging in a rapid dismantling of its Maoist structures and glorifying the acquisitive behaviors of the bourgeois world. Only this past month both Marx and Lenin were summarily dismissed as being irrelevant to the problems of modern China. Will political wonders never cease?  

We learned that singers, in this age of political disillusionment, have the best chance of becoming gods. If Michael Jackson had decided to run for the presidency, he might have given Ronald Reagan a good run for his money, especially if teenagers have been enfranchised. We can expect an increasing number of movie actors, disc jockeys, television news commentators and rock vocalists will enter politics and be successful. Lawyers, beware! 

We learned that Jews can be fascists too. The over publicized victory of Meir Kahane is an embarrassing revelation that the Jewish people is ethically (sic) normal . We have our share of racist and religious bigots too. The one positive result of Kahane’s success may be that it will silence, at least for a while, the insufferable propagandists who insist that Jews are morally superior to other groups. 

We have learned that Jews, also, can prefer public welfare to self reliance. The shameful request of the Israeli government for more American money to sustain the present Israeli standard of living is an ironic proposal for a nation that prides itself on its self-reliance. Now is the time for a painful austerity. But the present Israeli government is unwilling to impose the economic diet the country needs. Short-run political advantages outweigh long-run survival strategies. 

We have even learned that the so-called resurgence of traditional Judaism may not be the whole story of what’s happening in the Jewish religious world today. The Jewish Theological Seminary, the rabbinic school of Conservative Judaism, which for years prided itself on its adherence to the basics of traditional law, defied the halakha and, imitating Reform, opened its doors to women students. The vision of females with tefillin may seem half-traditional (sic). But it really isn’t. 

Well, we learned many more things too. But enough is enough.  

1986

Posted on by Sherwin Wine

The Jewish Humanist, January 1986, Vol. XXIII, Number 6

1986. 

A new year. A new agenda for problem solving. Old issues unresolved. New issues waiting to take center stage. 

What will be the major issues of 1986 – for Americans, for the world at large, for Jews in particular?  

1.As Americans, we will be devoting our attention to the following issues.  

Tax reform. Reagan’s proposal to provide more equity and simplicity for the taxation system has encountered so much hostility from both the left and the right that it is doubtful that any reasonable facsimile of the original proposal will ever pass Congress. But Reagan is determined that some form of tax reform bill be passed, even if the Democratic House distorts it. The momentum of his fiscal “revolution” and the prestige of his administration rest on success in this campaign. 

Budget balancing. The rebellion of Reagan’s own Republican followers in the House of Representatives against the deficit removal plan designed by Democrats, but endorsed by the President, was a political surprise. Arbitrating the debate between the left-wingers who want to cut defense expenditures and right-wingers who want to cut welfare money is no easy task.  But even liberals now concede that a sound economy demands a balanced budget. So the battle will continue-with every vested interest willing to eliminate every government benefit except its own. 

Farm devastation. The plight of the American farmer remains in the spotlight. Despite the new farm credit relief bill, a substantial minority of our agricultural entrepreneurs face bankruptcy. Americans are trapped by ambivalence. Farm subsidies are unpopular because they interfere with a balanced budget. Allowing the farm population to shrink is equally unpopular because most Americans believe that the last reservoir of traditional American virtue lies in the family life of the rural population. Resolving the ambivalence will provide a lot of public agony. 

Crime. Prison overcrowding and the early release of dangerous criminals has captured the public attention. Nothing is so personal as the universal fear of assault that both urbanites and suburbanites live with. Renewed calls for capital punishment will not subside. They, most likely, will grow stronger. Feeding, housing, and rehabilitating a large criminal population is a fiscal and moral issue that confronts the alternative use of the same money for more productive purposes. 

Congressional election. The performance of last year’s do-nothing congress has highlighted the impasse which now exists in the two legislative assemblies. Chaotic individualism and the breakdown of the old party discipline has frustrated the leadership in both parties and rendered constitutional decision-making unpredictable. The fact that all the Representatives and one-third of the Senators will be running for re-election this year suggests that this year will be worse than last. Most legislators will not want to take sides on controversial issues. 

Reagan. Always superb handling the personal side of the presidency, Reagan has proved himself less than superb in his second administration in getting what he wants. Poorly formulated public policies, insensitive staff people, squabbling cabinet ministers, and Congressional rebels continue to frustrate his political ambitions and the political legacy he wants to bequeath to posterity. Reagan’s leadership effectiveness will be an important issue for 1986. Democrats will be eager to exploit his new weakness. 

 AIDS. No disease has captured public attention in a long time to the same degree that this African plague has done. The media are obsessed with providing information, both reliable and scandalous, about the pervasive dangers of contracting AIDS. The struggle between self-protection and compassion continues to make headlines. The victims of the disease, whether homosexuals, drug abusers, or children, have aroused more fear than sympathy. As the number of cases increases, the media will continue to focus on this public anxiety.  

2. As members of the world community, we will be devoting our attention to the following problems in 1986. 

Russia. Disarmament talks between America and Russia appear to have gloomy prospects in the light of the Reagan administration’s decision to proceed with the development of “Star Wars” technology. But there is such a broad International alliance of public opinion, even from conservative European circles, for something to be done that desperation will force the leaders of both countries to provide some hope. Gorbachev, in particular, since he invested his prestige in the summit conference and in the creation of some new form of detente, will not let the issue die. 

South Africa. The intransigence of the Afrikaner government is leading to civil war and martial law government. Provoked by black (sic) terror, the Afrikaners will become more adamant and English-speaking whites will begin their flight. The confirmation will continue to divide world opinion between those who are outraged by the injustice to Blacks and those who most fear the loss of South Africa to Marxist control. 

Chile. Only two military dictatorships survive in South America – Paraguay and Chile. The latter is, by far, the more important and the more volatile. Demonstrations against the dictatorship of General Pinochet are bound to increase and become more violent, especially as long as economic decline continues. World attention will be dealing with the prospects for the future. Will the left or the center return to power? 

Nicaragua.  The continuing American campaign to unseat the Sandinista government enjoys wide American support and very little world support.  The presence of a second Marxist government in the Americas is intolerable to most U.S. conservatives, who see the present regime in Nicaragua as a form of dangerous Soviet penetration of the security belt of our country.  Support for the contras will remain a controversial issue. 

Philippines.  The corruption of the Marcos government, the killing of his chief opponent, and the rising Communist insurgency make the forthcoming election an intriguing test of alternatives.  If Corazon Aquino is able to unseat Marcos, will she yield to pressure from anti-American forces in her own party to repudiate the American alliance?  If Marcos remains in power, will his victory incite civil war and lead to the growing success of the Communist rebels?  As a strategically important nation in Southeast Asia, the Philippines merits our concern. 

3. As members of the Jewish people, we will be dealing with the following anxieties in 1986. 

Pollard Case.  The unfortunate spy fiasco in which Israeli agents were caught paying an American Jew to procure military secrets from a military ally was a traumatic embarrassment for Israel and the Jews who support it.  Questions of dual loyalty and the patriotism of American Jews resurfaced.  The desirability of the Israeli alliance was challenged by angry politicians.  And the Israeli government was confronted with a major crisis.  Given the fact that Pollard will face a public trial, the Israeli “perfidy” will remain very much in the public eye, and enemies of Israel will take advantage of their new opportunity. 

Peace.  The attempts of the Israeli Labor government to establish some basis for peace negotiations with Jordan and other Arab states will continue.  Most likely, in order to strengthen his hand and to avoid handing over leadership control to YItshak Shamir, his political opponent, in accordance with the coalition agreement, Shimon Peres will call an early election.  If Labor wins, the prospects for some form of peace negotiations will be good.  If Labor loses, confrontation will return. 

As you can see, the problems of 1986-like the issues of 1985-are formidable.  But we have no choice but to deal with them. 

Moscow/1989

Posted on by Sherwin Wine

The Jewish Humanist, January 1990, Vol. XXVI, Number 6

MOSCOW/1989 

I went to Moscow last October, right after Yom Kippur.  I was on my way to attend the Board meeting of the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism in Jerusalem.  Now Moscow is not exactly on the direct route between Detroit and Jerusalem.  But I had received word from Jerusalem that there were leaders in the newly organized Jewish communities who were interested in Humanistic Judaism.  The time seemed right for making contact. 

I had been to the Soviet Union three times before.  My first trip in 1970, in the heyday of the Brezhnev regime, encompassed European Russia.  My second trip, in 1986 involved a dialogue in Moscow between leaders of North American humanism.  During all three visits I was very much aware of the repressive nature of the Communist regime and the insidious nature of Communist antisemitism. 

Soviet antisemitism was not Nazi antisemitism.  It was neither overt nor violent.  Its primary purpose was to limit the participation of Jews in the political, intellectual and cultural life of the Soviet Union.  Its secondary purpose was to limit the contact of Jews with the majority of their co-ethnics outside the country, especially those in America and Israel.  Its roots lay in historic Russian antisemitism, the paranoiac fear of ‘cosmopolitan’ people with outside connections, the foreign policy goal of winning the support of Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East. The resentment of Jewish intellectuality and sheer envy. 

Communist antisemitism was rarely overt.  It never openly denounced Jews.  It preferred to condemn Zionists and Zionism.  It pretended to favor Jewish national identity and Jewish national rights.  It always found ‘patriotic’ Jews to support its Jewish policies.  If you were a successful Jewish professional who was not interested in doing anything about your Jewish identity and who never aspired to the highest positions of political and cultural life, then you could live your discreet life without harassment.  While the communist antisemites seemed to encourage assimilation, their antisemitism also prevented it.  Most Jews remained Jews without any positive Jewish content to their lives. 

My trip to Moscow filled me with excitement.  I knew that the Gorbachev reforms had undermined Communist antisemitism and released a tremendous new energy of Jewish assertiveness and creativity.  Jewish cultural and educational associations were emerging spontaneously all over the Soviet Union.  Jewish emigration was also growing with thousands queuing up at the American Embassy to secure their visa applications.  With the knowledge of all these new developments I was excited to discover what was really happening.  Would enough Soviet Jews remain to make Soviet Jewry a viable cultural community? 

From the moment of my arrival in Moscow I was aware of the ‘revolution’ that had taken place in Russia. Six Orthodox rabbis with books and videos were standing in the airport.  The customs officials were uninterested in my baggage.  The hotel floor spies no longer existed.  Citizens openly talked about politics, often complaining bitterly about the Government and writing foreigners to enter the fray.  Newspapers were filled with provocative articles about official corruption and the need for ending the supremacy of the Communist Party.  Street demonstrations against the Party were held with no police interference.  Religious ceremonies were being held inside the Kremlin.  And even pedestrians now had the courage to cross the streets against the red light. 

Ensconced in my favorite hotel, the National, directly across from the Kremlin, I had the opportunity to meet and talk with about 35 people who were leaders in the Russian Jewish community.  I also traveled around Moscow to visit new Jewish groups and to experience the new home of the Jewish Theater Group in Taganskaya Square. 

From the very beginning it was obvious to me that, despite the new freedom of glasnost, the Jewish community was in deep trouble.  Its new energy and creativity was matched by grave social dangers. 

The first was economic hardship.  While glasnost (the dismantling of repression) is working well, perestroika (economic reform) is doing badly.  Despite the Gorbachev promises of more consumer goods and higher standards of living, shortages are everywhere.  Sugar is rationed.  Soap and meat are unavailable.  Long lines continue for available shoddy goods.  The infrastructure is crumbling.  Shabbiness is everywhere. 

The reasons for this continuing disaster are obvious.  The heavy economic hand of centralized planning has not been lifted.  Very little entrepreneurial spirit remains after 70 years of Communist rule.  And what does survive is deeply resented by many.  Deficits and technological backwardness hold back development and make change difficult.  As long as the Party is involved with the economy, the disaster persists. 

Emigration for many Jews is a better alternative than poverty and economic struggle.  Since they have little hope that the Communist Party can change anything for the better, they want to get out before an economic collapse will usher in other chaos or fascistic repression. 

The second social danger is violent antisemitism.  While glasnost has liberated democrats to speak their opinions, it has also freed bigots to speak theirs.  Overt fascistic antisemitism has reappeared.  This variety is not benign, like the Communistic version.  It is open and straightforward, and aimed at the destruction of the Jews.  A new political organization Ramyat, intensely anti-Communist and nostalgic for the old Russia, accuses the Jews of inventing Communism and imposing it on the Russian people.  And now they say that Communism has failed, the Jews have decided ‘to flee the country like rats fleeing a sinking ship’.  Ramyatniks hold rallies,, publish journals and speak freely in loud voices, in public subways.  Last June a rumor swept the Soviet Union that a mass pogrom was imminent. 

Needless to say, Jews are terrified.  With the collapse of Communism, a nationalistic fascism is as much a possibility as liberal democracy.  Hundreds of thousands of assimilated Jews, who had no thought of leaving the Soviet Union are now thinking of emigration.  When it is all over two-thirds of the two million Soviet Jews may choose to leave.  It will certainly happen if the economy continues to deteriorate and the Jews are held responsible for the decline. 

In the midst of this turmoil the Jewish community is divided by the competition of rival factions.  The Orthodox, reinforced by American and Israeli mercenaries, are aggressively trying to win the hearts of Russian Jewry!  Reform and Conservative agencies are trying to carve out their own niche.  Anti-government groups are zealously intimidating Jewish groups that are willing to cooperate with the Gorbachev regime and Party apparatchiks.  Amidst the free-for-all, there are personal rivalries and a widespread skepticism that in a few years, there will be any significant Soviet Jewish community around to organize. 

Secular Jews are very vulnerable.  Deprived of Jewish culture, and not understanding the alternative ways to be Jewish, they are easy victims of aggressive Orthodox missionaries.  Right now they need literature and videos about Secular Humanistic Judaism.  The many secular Jewish academicians and leaders I spoke to say that the first need is to enable secular Jews to feel secular and legitimately Jewish.  Existing literature needs to be translated and disseminated among confused people.  Since the hated former regime is associated with dogmatic secularity, the words ‘humanism’ and ‘humanistic’ are more attractive labels. 

At the end of December, a congress of Jewish cultural associations from over 75 cities of the Soviet Union met in Moscow to establish a national federation.  Mike Chlenn, a 49 year old ethnographer from Moscow (with whom I spent a memorable evening) was the organizer of the conference and became its leader.  As he said to me:  ‘I do not know whether we are the Gevra Kadesha (burial society) of Russian Jewry or the dawn of a new cultural renaissance.  Only time will tell.’ 

The War Is Over. What Do We Do Now?

Posted on by Sherwin Wine

The Jewish Humanist, April 1991, Vol. XXVII, Number 9

The stunning American military victory has produced both euphoria and anxiety. We are euphoric over the swift collapse of Iraqi armed resistance. We are anxious over the ambiguous meaning of its consequences. 

The victory has forced us to dismiss so many Illusions. Saddam Hussein is not a monstrously clever and cunning ruler. He is a  stupid man who arranged for the destruction of the Arab world’s most powerful Army. Had he read the Sunday New York Times he would have been aware of the encirclement strategy of the Schwarzkopf command. Every amateur military “maven” but him knew that the amphibious landing was a ruse. 

The war that was to last for months lasted for one month. The ground war lasted for only 100 hours. The thousands of American casualties and the use of chemical weapons never materialized, the so-called ambivalent Arab allies proved stalwart. The bickering European allies were supportive. The impulsive Israelis exercised noble restraint. The much maligned American Army performed brilliantly. Even Mr. “wimp-macho” George Bush turned out to be a sensational manager and orchestrator of events. 

The war has produced consequences both pleasant and unpleasant. The Iraqi Army is destroyed. The regime of Saddam Hussein and his Baath party teeters on the brink of collapse. The authority of the United Nations has been strengthened. America has been reconfirmed as the hegemonic military power in the world.  

But, on the other side, thousands of Iraqs were killed. Iraq is in economic ruin. Kuwait is a devastation. Chaos and rebellion stalk Iraq and threaten to dismember it.  

The victory has left us with so many questions.  What do we do with Iraq? Do we let Saddam Hussein stay in power? Do we allow Iraq to disintegrate into many pieces? Do we punish war crimes? How do we arrange for the destruction of chemical weapons and the payment of reparations? Will American troops have to remain to enforce the peace? 

And what about Kuwait? Will we allow the former tyrannical regime to return to full power?  Will we be able to cope with the ecological disaster of burning oil? 

And what about Israel? Will we use our new power to force a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict? Will we negotiate with Palestinian leaders who supported Saddam Hussein? So many questions need a very clear vision of the future. They need a well thought out and consistent foreign policy. Formulating it and sticking to it may be harder than waging the war. But if the wrong vision is chosen all the benefits of victory will be lost. The crucial issue right now is how America will choose to use its enormous power to ensure peace. 

Many visions have emerged as options. There is the option of revenge, which would settle merely for the punishment, humiliation and destruction of our enemies. There is the option of imperialism which would dictate our support of any regime in the Middle East that guaranteed our access to cheap oil. There is the option of pure idealism which would require us to try to establish liberal democracies in every country of the Muslim world, whether such governments are feasible or not. 

The vision that is most appealing to me, the one that mixes idealism and pragmatism, is the vision of world order. George Bush cited world order as the major reason for presenting the war against Iraq. Despite the loftiness of the title it simply means that waging war for aggressive purposes will not be allowed.  Dictators that behave, dictators that do not cross boundaries, can remain in power. We prefer democracy. We will strive to intrude democratic ideals whenever possible. But we will not insist on it. We do not have the power to arrange for democracy everywhere.  But, at this present moment, we do have the power to arrange for world order. 

What are the constituent elements of this vision?  Pursuing word order means that we freeze existing boundaries, prevent the proliferation of arms, pursue disarmament, strengthen the United Nations, work to create an effective United Nations peacekeeping force and encourage regional self-discipline.  None of this can be done by America alone.  Only the cooperation of the Great Powers, including the Soviet Union, China, Germany and Japan will make our efforts effective.  Both the new coalition against Iraq and a revived United Nations make this shared responsibility feasible. 

The option of world order is not “pie-in-the-sky”.  It is urgently needed.  And it is perfectly consistent with the vital interests of an international economy which requires peace and safety for economic stability.  Multinational corporations derive no benefit from untrammeled nationalism and aggressive war. 

What are the implications of this vision as a foreign policy, as a way of dealing with the consequences of the Iraqi war? 

It means that we applaud the ultimate fall of Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party.  It means that we offer no assistance to Shiiite fundamentalists who are seeking to replace Hussein with an Iranian style theocracy.  Another Islamic republic is not conducive to stability in the region. 

It means that we support the establishment of a coalition government in Iraq, which will reflect the interests of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.  If this coalition can be arrived at democratically all the better.  But the partition of Iraq into three independent states would only promote chaos in a Middle East where all boundaries are artificial. 

It means that we do not leave Iraq until a permanent ceasefire has been arranged, until chemical weapons have been destroyed and until an Arab peacekeeping force has been organized to police the border. 

It means that we support the establishment of Arab regional self-discipline in which the Arab victors of the war, the Egyptians, the Syrians and the Saudis, cooperate to maintain order especially in Iraq and Lebanon. 

It means that America apply (sic) pressure on Israel to negotiate with the Arab victors of the war to exchange land for peace. With Iraq out of the military way, and with Egypt having made peace with Israel, the possibility of peace with the Syrians and the Saudis is a distinct possibility. Now is the time for negotiation. The Palestinians are weak, humiliated and hated even by their Arab defenders. And Arab moderates are in the ascendancy. Once Israel establishes a basis for cooperation with the Arab moderates, she has little to fear from the Palestinians. Arab moderates may be perfectly willing to accept a Palestine federated with Jordan. In the age of missiles, the Golan Heights are less important to Israel than peace with Syria, a Syria that has no desire for an independent Palestinian state. 

It means that arms sales to Third World countries, including Middle East countries, need to be controlled through an American initiative in cooperation with the United States. Disarmament talks between the United States and the Soviet Union need to be supplemented with an international conference of arms producing nations to establish workable criteria for effective control. Arms sales cannot realistically be stopped immediately. Too many jobs depend on them. But they can be gradually scaled down through international agreement and shared sacrifice. It means that now is the time to begin the process of creating an international peacekeeping force, under the auspices of the United Nations, which can intervene effectively if future Saddam Husseins (sic) arise, and if regional forces are too weak to respond. This force will take at least ten years to develop and will require American support.  American hegemony is too expensive for America to afford. We need to share responsibility, or we shall over-reach and destroy what we have already accomplished. 

It means that we seriously develop an alternative to oil as the fuel of our economy. Given the history of technology, there is no reason to assume that such an alternative cannot be found if natural resources are united in the search. For the foreseeable future oil will be indispensable to our prosperity. But, in the end, we cannot allow the Middle East to be the arbiter of our economic fate. Nor can we afford the pollution disaster attendant on the use of oil.  

The vision of world order, if acted on, would translate the military victory in the Gulf into a real victory.  

Mikhail Gorbachev

Posted on by Sherwin Wine

The Jewish Humanist, February 1990, Vol. XXVI, Number 7

Time Magazine is right. Mikhail Gorbachev was the hero of the 80s. 

Gorbachev is proof that personalities do make a difference in history. Political, social and economic forces have their place. But determined individuals and crucial positions of leadership, have the power to transform the world – for either good or evil. 

Would the Greek Empire have existed without Alexander the Great? Would the New Deal have worked without Franklin Delano Roosevelt? Would the Holocaust have taken place without Adolf Hitler? 

Of course, times have to be right for change. But they are only the setting. Someone has to take advantage of the opportunity. The economic difficulties of the Russian Empire were not the creation of Gorbachev. Nevertheless, could have been confronted with many different strategies. More repression was one option. The decision of Gorbachev to choose glasnost and perestroika was not inevitable. Nor was his election to the leadership of the Communist Party. Several important conservative members of the Politburo were absent from Moscow on the day that Chernenko died. His coming to power was almost by chance. 

Because of Gorbachev Europe is no longer the same. The Cold War is ending. The Russian people are free to speak their mind. Subject nationalities are asserting their right to self – determination. The Soviet Satellites of Eastern Europe have been liberated. The hegemony of the Communist party has been repudiated by former Stalinist regimes. The Berlin Wall has come tumbling down. Jews of the Soviet Union are free to emigrate. 

It is quite clear that none of this would have happened without the boldness and political skills of Gorbachev. The collapse of the Stalinist governments of East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Bulgaria was only possible because the people no longer feared the intervention of the Russian army. The Brezhnev Doctrine so dramatically manifested in the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, had been eliminated. The old rulers were left naked and defenseless before their own people. 

I do not believe that Gorbachev was fully aware of the consequences of his decisions. I am not sure that he would have made them had he been fully aware. His hope and vision were to reform and strengthen the Communist parties through liberalization. He wanted the social system to ride the crest of reform, not to be destroyed by its impact. 

What he wanted did not happen. He underestimated the ability of the Communist hierarchies to adapt to necessary change. He also underestimated the hostility to Communism which existed among subject peoples. Once freed from the fear of retaliation the mobs became uncontrollable in their demands. The Communist establishment came tumbling down like a house of cards. 

In the chaos of the last year the desire for personal freedom has taken second place to the power of nationalism. Long suppressed nations want autonomy and Independence more than they want economic restructuring. In the melee of conflicting national interests the Soviet Union may disintegrate into an arena of warring states. Fueled by patriotism, resentment and chauvinistic ambition, the nations of the former Russian empire may turn to an agenda never envisioned by Gorbachev. Armenia and Azerbaijan are just the beginning of the trouble. 

Will Gorbachev be able to survive these unforeseen consequences? Or will the emerging chaos spell his undoing?  

In recent weeks his nerves seem to be very much on edge. He delivered an hysterical speech in the Soviet legislature about his loyalty to Communism. He harshly scolded the Lithuanian audiences he had sought to charge. He told his wife to shut up in public. 

His survival in power is important. There is no other Russian leader charismatic enough to provide the image of leadership in the midst of this political storm. 

What is quite clear is that he cannot survive so long as he ties his fortune to the Communist Party. What has happened in the Soviet satellites will also happen in the Soviet Union. The discredited political structures cannot satisfy the demands of the people for personal freedom, economic Improvement in national assertiveness. If he insists on defending Communism he will fall with Communism. 

If Gorbachev can advance his boldness one more step, he will present himself as a reformist president who is not bound by the political and party structures of the past. If he does so, he will discover that his people will follow where he leads, that his conservative enemies will be stymied by their own confusion and that the support of Western nations will readily be forthcoming. 

If he fails to do so, he will only grow more frustrated amid the bewildering and unforeseen consequences of his own decisions. Attacked by both liberals and conservatives, his triumphant victories will degenerate into hysterical last – stands. He will be destroyed by what he created.  

Gorbachev was the hero of the ‘80’s.  Whether he will be the hero of the ‘90’s will be largely up to him – up to his vision of his role in history.  

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day

Posted on by Sherwin Wine

The Jewish Humanist, February 1986, Vol. XXIII, Number 7

Lincoln’s Birthday now has a twin.  Martin Luther King, Jr. has joined our sixteenth president  as a national hero deserving a national holiday.  The symbols of national unity are now becoming more diverse. 

Many people thought that the “kosherizing” of this new holiday would never happen.  Many worked hard to make sure that it would never happen.  Bigots had blind masks of respectability, maintaining that there were other, more worthy Americans from Thomas Jefferson to FDR who deserved holidays first.  They missed the point of King’s advocates.  National memorial festivals are not really intended to honor the dead.  They are symbols of political and social realities which merit public attention and respect. 

What is the significance of celebrating King’s birthday for all Americans? 

The birthday reminds us that we are a multi-ethnic, multi-racial nation with connections to many countries and many nations.  At one time, we had an Angleo-Saxon majority who found their sense of roots in England.  Today the citizens of British descent are a minority people, an ethnic enclave in an increasingly diverse state.  For most American, English is not their ancestral tongue.  It is a cultural convenience which enables people of widely different backgrounds to communicate with each other in a mobile urban society where space has to be shared.  The symbols of the state, including its holidays, need to reflect the people who live in it. 

The birthday reminds us that we are gradually ceasing to be a “European” nation.  Blacks, Asians and Chicanos are a very visible presence in our country.  Given the present birthrates of both whites and non-whites, it is quite likely that the future racial composition of the American people will be radically different from what it presently is.  Countless numbers of Americans will no longer be able to find their “homeland” in Europe.  They will experience their roots in Asia and Africa.  As an Africa-American, King is a symbol of the American future much more than a hero of the American past. 

The birthday is a sign of the health of the American political system.  There is an enormous flexibility in our politics structures which enables them to adapt successfully to dramatically new circumstances and which most leftist radicals failed to discern.  Ever since the civil rights marches twenty years ago there have been enormous changes in the pattern of racial segregation and humiliation in the country.  Although unemployment is still widespread in the black (sic) community, the presence of blacks (sic) in politics, academia and corporations is considerably stronger.  Despite all the racial tensions that persist, there is a creative dynamism and health to our society which warrants optimism.  Progress moves slowly.  But it does move. 

The birthday reminds us that it is possible for competing nationalities to negotiate their differences and avoid Civil War. Lincoln was a reluctant war leader.  King was an enthusiastic advocate of non-violence.  In a multi-ethnic world where nationalities are all mixed together in an urban stew, civil war is self-destructive because both sides destroy what they need to share.  Since they cannot really be separated, they have to develop a pragmatic togetherness.  Old models of confrontation no longer work.  Boundaries with hostile forces on both sides are ineffective as more and more blacks (sic) and Chicanos slip into the middle class.  Differences will have to be negotiated peacefully.  Non-violence will mean survival. 

For us Jews, King’s birthday offers at least two messages.  The first is that our historic immigrant skill of climbing to the top by seeking to ingratiate ourselves with the Anglosaxon establishment may now be less useful than it used to be.  Our obsession with impressing white Protestants with our social usefulness and with the benign character of our religion reflects a survival strategy appropriate to an Anglosaxon country.  In a state where blacks(sic) are becoming politically more and more important, we need to reassess the danger of the new hostilities which have surfaced in the past few years between black (sic) and Jews.  We need new skills for dealing more effectively with non-white, non-establishment ethnic groups.  We need to spend more time trying to find out what they want and need. 

The second message deals with our image of the Jewish state.  Although Israel is clearly binational-with a substantial Arab minority with a language of its own-there are no symbols, heroes, or holidays with which the Arabs can identify and which enable the Jews to give public recognition and dignity to the Arab presence.  For Arabs in Israel, the signs of Israeli patriotism provoke only alienation.  For Jew in Israel, they emphasize the “foreignness” of their Arab citizens.  While non-Israeli Jews in the Diaspora can identify with the symbols of the Jewish state, many non-Jewish Israeli citizens of longstanding cannot.  Ultimately, out of both moral and political necessity, Canada had to alter its flag to acknowledge the French, and America had to change its roster of heroes to give recognition to the blacks (sic).  Hopefully, Israel will prove as wise. 

The 1984 Presidential Election

Posted on by Sherwin Wine

The Jewish Humanist, December 1984, Vol. XXII, Number 5

The election is over.   

What does it all mean? 

Certainly there were few surprises.  The overwhelming Reagan victory was predicted by every pollster long before the balloting began.  The inability of Mondale-even with Ferraro-to mobilize a winning coalition was obvious from the beginning.  Democrats spent most of the campaign in deep depression. 

The election results did reveal certain political realities that both conservative and liberals must face. 

Here they are: 

Despite predictions to the contrary and despite an enormous Republican effort to woo the Jews, Jews voted overwhelmingly for Mondale.  In 1980 40% of the Jews chose Reagan.  In l984 only 30% did the same.  Neither economic self-interest nor strong support for the Israeli government could overcome Jewish uneasiness about the new alliance of Reagan with the religious Right.  The attempt to Christianize America scares many Jewish voters who were no long enthusiastic Democrats, especially in the age of Jesse Jackson. 

The majority of women voted for Reagan.  Most American women are not enthusiastic supporters of feminism.  Ferraro was no turn-on for them.  And many feminists, who liked the idea of a women vice-presidential candidate, voted for Reagan because their economic vested interests were more important for them. 

The Republicans have become a white man’s party.  Almost 90% of all Black voter (sic) chose Mondale.  Black rejection of the Republicans serves the strategy of many conservative Republicans.  Although they cannot articulate it publicly, they are delighted by Black hostility.  It wins white racist votes.  And whites are the overwhelming majority of the American people.   

A major realignment of American political forces has taken place.  Reagan has accomplished (sic) in 1980 and 1984 for conservatives what Roosevelt did for liberals in 1932 and 1936.  He has put together a winning coalition.  Although conservatives were, most likely, the American majority throughout the entire liberal political era, they were subverted by their division into Northern Republican and Southern Democrats.  Now they are united.  The South and the West have replaced the East as the center of Republican strength.  The Democrats are now reduced to a minority coalition of Blacks, Hispanics, liberals, feminists and organized labor.  Only the House of Representatives remains under their control.  And many of the House Democrats are conservative.  

Jesse Jackson proved to be of limited value to the Democrats.  Jackson’s dramatization of his Black loyalties provoked a white backlash.  All over the South the registration of new Black voters was countered by the aggressive registration of new white voters by pro-Reagan fundamentalist preachers.  Only the church-state controversy prevented an exodus of many Jewish voters from the Democratic fold in the face of what they perceived to be Jackson’s antisemitism. 

The re-election of Helms to the Senate in North Carolina is a boost for the religious Right.  As the most vocal champion of the importance of merging ‘Christian morality’ with American public life, Helms will continue to push for school prayer, abortion prohibition and state support for private education.  His exaggerated anti-communism bodes no good for our disarmament future, especially if he assumes the leadership of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  Certainly, he will aggressively insist that Reagan pay his political debt to the fundamentalist Right that supported him. 

The House of Representatives is now more Republican than before.  While most liberals have been ‘weeded out” of the Republican ranks, many Democrats remain conservative.  It may now be easier for Reagan to restore the conservative House alliance he enjoyed in 1981. 

The power of a charismatic media personality has been confirmed.  Just as Roosevelt (Reagan’s role model, ironically) mastered the radio so has Reagan mastered television.  His good-humored macho optimism has proved politically irresistible.  He communicated leadership in a way that Mondale, bogged down with a vain attempt to discuss substantive issues, did not. 

So what is the message of these political realities to both political parties? 

The message to the Democrats is clear. 

They need presidential candidates who can win in the media.  Mondale-type aspirants, no matter how talented or how well-intentioned, simply will not do. 

The Jesse Jackson Black power strategy may mobilize Blacks.  But it also mobilizes  hostile white.  The Democrats will remain a minority party if they are viewed primarily as the party of the Blacks and disadvantaged. 

America is not in the mood for messages of doom and impending financial disaster.  Mondale’s realism may have been refreshing.  But it did not win votes.  Successful candidates project optimism. 

It’s hard to say.  But the ‘best’ thing that could happen for the Democrats is a recession. 

The message to the Republicans is also clear. 

They may have a long-run majority party if they can weld their coalition more tightly together. 

A substitute for Reagan is essential.  The new coalition is still too fragile to rely on the efforts of a mediocre showman.  Neither Bob Dole nor Jack Kemp quite fill the bill. 

The Jewish vote will not really be available to the Republicans so long as the ‘preachers’ remain in the White House.   

The Republican have a choice.  They can persist in their winning strategy to create a white man’s party in America basically ignoring Blacks and racial minorities.  Such a campaign is morally questionable and will create deep social rifts in America.  Or they can choose a more moderate strategy, which provides for the inclusion of disadvantaged racial minorities in the list of recipients of government help.  The choice is a moral one.  I’m not sure that is wil be politically convincing. 

Bill Clinton Won

Posted on by Sherwin Wine

The Jewish Humanist, December 1996, Vol. XXXIII, Number 5

That hardly seemed possible two years ago.  Newt Gingrich was on the rise.  His faithful followers flooded the halls of Congress.  Both the Senate and the House of Representatives were given over into Republican hands.  The radical rightness of the Contract with America was popular.  The first two years of the Clinton presidency featured dramatic failures, especially the fiasco of health care reform.  The stench of scandal was rising up from the White House. 

But the ‘miracle’ happened.  Newt Gingrich overplayed his power hand.  He frightened the middle class with his ‘indiscreet’ campaign to tackle the cost of Medicare.  He annoyed many economic conservatives with his persistent effort to push the social agenda of the Religious Right.  He angered millions of Americans by his radical attempt to shut down the American government by withholding funds.  His bulldog personality, with all its insistence that change happen quickly, did not take into account the deep ambivalence of Americans about the role of government in their lives.  Only a charismatic Republican candidate could reverse the damage.  But, instead, the party bosses chose Robert Dole.  Had he been a Democratic ‘mole’ his dull schoolteacher preachiness could not have served the cause of the Democrats more effectively.  The Republican Congressional victory in 1994 was turned into a presidential defeat in 1996. 

Of course we have to be aware of the realities surrounding the Clinton victory.  Bill Clinton was elected by less than a majority of the Americans who chose to vote.  The Republicans still control both houses of Congress, increasing their number in the Senate.  Newt Gingrich is still the Speaker of the House,, with the power to dictate much of the legislative agenda.  The economic policies of Bill Clinton are almost indistinguishable from that of the Republicans, a phenomenon dictated by political necessity.  Many Americans who voted for Clinton expressed deep reservations about his moral character and complained about the unexciting choice they were ‘forced’ to make.  Even in victory, Clinton was faced with the threat of deadly scandal. 

So what does the Clinton victory really mean? 

It means that the Left is dead.  You can no longer win a political victory preaching the virtues of the welfare state.  But, at the same time, you cannot assault the established welfare benefits of the middle class, especially Medicare. 

It means that Newt Gingrich and the Republicans call the economic shots and Clinton follows.  Bill Clinton was able to win the election because he embraced a large part of the Gingrich agenda, from workfare to the shrinking of the government.  The defeat of Dole was not a defeat for Republican economics.  While the unions were instrumental in helping remove some Republican ‘radicals’ from Congress, Clinton ignored their economic passions.  The victory for North American free trade, engineered with the help of the Republicans, is a case in point.  Cooperation between the President and the Republican Congress on economic issues will continue. 

It means that only by embracing the moderate Center, where most Americans stand, can you win a presidential election.  The Left and the Right can only ‘win’ if they ally themselves to a candidate of the Center. 

It means that the ‘great reversal’ has taken place.  The American South, which at one time was the reliable bastion of the Democratic party is in the foundation population (sic) of the Republicans.  Twenty years ago the South voted Republican only in presidential elections.  Today they vote Republican in Congressional elections. The Democratic conservatives of the past have become the Repblican conservatives of the present and the future.  At the same time the Northeast, which until Roosevelt was a Republivan stronghold, has now gone over to the Democrats.  The political map has been turned upside down. 

It means that, while the Democrats are becoming more moderate, they are also losing their Southern right wing conservatives.  Many of these conservatives always voted with the Republicans anyway, especially on social issues.  The internal unity of the Congressional Democrats has been improved. 

It means that racial minorities are becoming politically more important.  The victories of Clinton in the Northeast and California were dictated by the overwhelming support of Blacks and Hispanics. Republican power in the past, especially its capture of the South, relied on its image as the party of white people.  But, with the growth of the non-white population, that image may, in the end, prove to be counter-productive. 

It means that increasing numbers of American no longer see themselves as either Republicans or Democrats.  They split their vote in the spirit of independents.  The stability of the old system, with large blocs of predictable party voters, is gone.  Long stretches of either Democratic or Republian rule will no longer exist.  The new fickle voting public has little discomfort in either mixing or repudiating.  Old time party loyalty is over.  Change is the name of the game. 

It means that the political era dominated by World War II has come to an end.  Robert Dole was the last presidential candidate who will have participated in the greatest trauma of the twentieth century.  The patriotism of that era (that) carried over into the intensities of the Cold War, is now not even nostalgia.  Most American have no memories of either war or conscription.  World War II is ancient history.  And so is the America of small towns and apple pie. 

It means that Bill Clinton may have a hard time in a second term.  A Republican Congress will not force the political advantages in pushing the Whitewater scandal.  The political victim of such an assault will not be Clinton-who cannot run again for president-but Al Gore, the obvious heir-apparent to the Clinton mantle.  The public needs to brace itself for Whitewater ‘burnout.” 

Above all it means the defeat of the Religious Right.  One of the reasons that Clinton took the moderate Center was  his resistance to the social and ‘moral’ agenda of the Republican party.  It is very clear that, outside of the South, the alliance of the Republicans with the Christian Coalition is not an advantage.  For Americans who fear the Religious Right this development is good news. 

Exodus of Jews from the Soviet Union

Posted on by Sherwin Wine

The Jewish Humanist, December 1990, Vol. XXVII, Number 5

The exodus of Jews from the Soviet Union continues.  It is one of the most dramatic events in Jewish History in modern times. 

One hundred years ago the majority of the Jews of the world lived in Eastern Europe, especially within the old Russian Empire.  Although oppressed by the Tsarist government, they constituted a vital national entity.  Reinforced by Yiddish and Ashkenazic culture, they saw themselves as a distant ethnic group.  Antisemitism made their national yearnings all the more powerful. 

But this community was undermined by three historic developments.  The opening up of North America to mass immigration allowed the oppressed Jews of Eastern Europe to flee antisemitism and to find refuge in a culture of freedom and opportunity.  Hundreds of thousands of Russian, Polish and Romanian Jews abandoned their homes and rushed to America.  The Bolshevik Revolution, which initially was identified with the liberation of the Jewish People and which had recruited thousands of idealistic Jews to its Marxist standard, turned against the Jews, Zionism and Yiddish culture.  Cut off from the rest of the Jewish people by Stalinist isolation, Soviet Jewry ceased to function as a Jewish community.  The rise of Nazi fascism and the Holocaust which it created, destroyed the heart of the Ashkenazic homeland.  The critical members of Yiddish speaking Jews no longer existed outside.  Outside of a few major cities Eastern Europe had become a Jewish wasteland. 

The present exodus of the Jews from the Soviet Union is the final stage in the dissolution of the Ashkenazic nation.  If, as predicted, one million Jews choose to leave the Soviet republics, the aging and indifferent Jews who remain will not be able to constitute a significant community.  For all practical purposes, the Ashkenazic nation, which lasted for over one thousand years, will be dead. 

Why is this exodus taking place especially now when the Communist tyranny has collapsed and the Jews are free to be what they want to be? 

The reasons are not difficult to find.  The economic chaos in the Soviet Union has totally demoralized the population, both Jewish and non-Jewish.  Most Soviet citizens have no hope that the severe economic problems will be solved in the near future.  Since Jews are allowed to leave and have a place to go, they choose to leave.  Only patriotic masochists would choose to stay. 

The major reason for Jewish flight is the terrifying re-emergence of overt antisemitism.  Under Communism antisemitism was controlled for state purposes.  Jews suffered discrimination but they were not generally exposed to violence.  Today, with the chaos of the new freedom, violent fascistic antisemitism is again part of the Russian scene.  Newspapers, rallies and public political figures denounce the Jews for corrupting Russian life and for both inventing and destroying communism.  Violence and threats of violence are increasing.  In this environment even Jews who had no interest in Jewish identity and who had never contemplated immigration for themselves are clamoring to leave. 

What does this dramatic exodus mean for the Jewish people? 

It means that the character of American Jewry will continue to be altered by the arrival of Soviet Jews in the United States.  Several hundred thousand Jews, distributed throughout the major centers of American Jewish life make a difference.  Their needs and their culture will help to shape the future of the American Jewish community. 

It means that Jewish life in Western Europe will be altered by the arrival of thousands of Soviet Jewish refugees.  Unable to secure entry to North America and unable to survive economically in Israel, many Russian Jews will seek to go where economic opportunity beckons.  Even restrictive immigration policies will not deter them.  They will slip through the cracks.  They may even be responsible for the revival of a significant Jewish community in prosperous Germany. 

It means that Israel will be strengthened by the arrival of nearly a million immigrants.  The security of the state demands more Jews.  But Israel will also be changed.  The secular forces in the Jewish state will be enhanced because Soviet Jews are overwhelmingly secular.  As long as the Labor party continues to abandon its socialist heritage (and Soviet Jews are overwhelmingly anti-socialist) it should benefit from the Russian arrivals.  The ultra-Orthodox are worried and should be worried.  Ashkenazic hegemony will also be restored.  One million Ashkenazi Jews will be a powerful balance to the growing Sephardic and Oriental presence in Isaeli life. 

What does this new exodus mean for us as Humanistic Jews? 

It means that we have a large new community of Jews in the Soviet Union, Israel and America who would be “turned on” by Humanistic Judaism, if they knew that it existed. 

Many Soviet immigrants are indifferent to Jewish identity.  Others are trying to find their roots in the religious revival, but many of them have a reawakened Jewish consciousness which they cannot fully express in the conventional Judaism which they have encountered. 

But we cannot reach these prospective Humanistics Jews through English and English speaking “missionaries”.  We can only reach them through Russian and Russian leaders.  The Orthodox missionaries are already working full time to seduce the “newly awakened” to traditional Judaism.  They have millions of dollars available to them to publish literature, produce videos and establish schools to broadcast their message. 

We cannot match their resources.  But we need to match their zeal before we lose one of the most important opportunities to bring confused secular Jews to Humanistic Judaism. 

On Monday, December 10, Nikoli Solovyev, a leader of Soviet Jews in the state of Israel, will be our speaker.  He is a member of the Israel Association of Secular Humanistic Jews.  He has contacts, through his work, with thousands of Russian Jews in both Israel and the Soviet Union.  He believes that the message of Humanistic Judaism is exactly what most Russian Jews need and want, if only they knew about it.  Come and hear how we can respond to this unique exodus in Jewish history. 

Note on sources: The Jewish Humanist  was the monthly newsletter of The Birmingham Temple. The periodical Humanistic Judaism was the quarterly journal of the Society for Humanistic Judaism. The Center for New Thinking was Wine’s adult learning program beyond Humanistic Judaism. Selections from Wine’s books are appropriately cited.
All texts, photos, audio and video are © by the Literary Estate of Sherwin Wine, whose custodian is the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism – North American Section. All rights reserved.