A line in one of the working papers for the recent Jewish People Policy international conference entitled “Jewish Identity and Identification: New Patterns Meanings and Network’s ” captured much of what is wrong with contemporary liberalism. In a section on changing political affiliations and alliances the authors ask whether the Jewish community’s altered material and political circumstance “entail a long-term shift from identification with the have-nots to identification with the haves.”
In other words are Jews about to become conservatives lacking all concern with society’s have-nots. (A full session of the two-day Jewish identity track focused on whether political liberalism still serves as a source of Jewish identification.)
The authors characterize the divide between conservative and liberal as one of concern with the haves or with the have-nots. I would suggest other possible ways to characterize the divide. For instance: Are poor people better served by government hand-outs that foster a culture of dependence (liberal) or by paying jobs that provide the skills and work ethic to escape poverty (conservative)? Is it more virtuous to give other people’s money to the have-nots (liberal) or one’s own money (conservative)? Is the proper goal of government guaranteeing equality of outcomes (liberal) or securing liberty (conservative)?
With the exception of the last each of these characterizations of the liberal/conservative divide — including that of the JPPI authors — is highly tendentious and thus a sure conversation stopper. But I want to focus on that of the JPPI authors both of whom are highly intelligent. To them liberals are “good people” because they care about the less fortunate while conservatives are “bad people” who care only about themselves. (Does that sound like a recent presidential campaign?)
Create a free account to keep reading.
