Arguing for the sake of heaven
By Miriam Zimmerman
Kabbalat Shabbat services are like a minivacation for me. My Friday night home at Congregation Beth Jacob (CBJ) in Redwood City, Calif., refreshes my soul and helps me recover from the demands and fatigue of weekday work. The constant editorials of publisher Gabriel Cohen, z’l, about Shabbat service attendance took hold long ago. My husband and I have been Friday night regulars for years.
On Fri., Oct. 10, 2008, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) speaker Elias Saratovsky talked at CBJ about the current election. He began with the question, “Is it good for the Jews?” the answer to which functions as a litmus test for American Jewish political behavior. Saratovsky’s surprising answer was to point out the positive pro-Israel position of both presidential candidates, favoring neither candidate over the other. In fact, AIPAC does not endorse candidates.
On Oct. 2, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) posted an
article titled, “Financial Crisis Sparks Wave of Internet Anti-Semitism”
on their website, www.adl.org. It is truly frightening how quickly anti-Semitism
surfaces whenever there is trouble and the need for blame. The question,
“Is she or he good for the Jews?” takes on a greater urgency.
That said, I no longer feel that the knee-jerk response to support Israel
no matter what, is good for the Jews. Bush has proven not to be good for
the United States or for the world. Such a political leader cannot be
good for the Jews. Similarly, Republican presidential nominee John McCain,
as a supporter of Bush policies and one who would continue them, cannot
be good for the Jews.
During the Q&A, I asked two questions. First, did Saratovsky mean to imply that Jews could vote for either candidate because either would be good for the Jews? I thought it was a simple yes or no question, but Saratovsky proceeded to expound at length that it is more important for Jews to concentrate on members of Congress regarding their positions on issues of concern for Jews.
Knowing that my second question might be perceived by my fellow congregants as hostile, I prefaced it with the fact that my husband and I have been members of AIPAC for many years and that I was among those honored with an aliyah during High Holy Day services because of my Israel trip last summer. Something in Saratovsky’s comments about what was good for Israel made me question whether or not AIPAC supports the peace process. I decided to find out by asking.
Saratovsky said that my question was a good one. He proceeded to give a detailed response such that after Shabbat while writing this article, I still do not know the answer. My husband, knowing that as a professor of communication I have years of public speaking teaching experience, always asks me what I think about speakers we hear together.
“He was textbook perfect – he had transitions,” I laughed. For me, transitions serve as the litmus test for an outstanding speaker. But Saratovsky managed to turn questions into additional opportunities for him to get his agenda out. He would be a great political candidate, I concluded.
During the Oneg, another congregant tried to engage me in an argument, having perceived that my questions had been hostile. He presented his ideas, and then invited me to refute them. I declined, tried to explain that I was into dialogue, wanted to understand and not to argue.
My answer seemed to make him angrier. He protested, “You pretend to be an intellectual, yet you….” I have never walked away from someone midsentence, but I did not have to put up with someone’s abuse shattering my Shabbat peace.
Jewish tradition distinguishes between an argument “for the sake of heaven” from an argument that is contrary to heaven. Illustrative of arguments for the sake of heaven were those of the House of Hillel, which acknowledged the validity and dignity of its adversary. On the other hand, the House of Shammai argued contrary to heaven by not acknowledging its opponent’s perspective.
In my article in the Oct. 1, 2008 issue, I explained that as a former Hillary Clinton supporter, McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin to appeal to Clinton supporters was an insult to all thinking women. But I do not want my readers to think that I am voting for the Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama only because I cannot abide the Republican VP candidate.
I have chosen Obama over McCain not only because Obama’s positions on issues mesh with my own. Other journalists have analyzed the candidates’ respective positions on the major issues. For an excellent analysis of Obama on the issues, see Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt’s endorsement on:
JTA,http://jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/2008101020081010lipstadtobama.html posted on October 13, 2008.
Because of the negative ad hominem campaign strategies by McCain spreading fear, disinformation, and fantasy about Obama, I want to present my rationale based on the respective personalities of the candidates.
Exposing a distortion if not an outright lie such as the innuendo about Obama’s middle name with “ties” to the Palestinian community unfortunately, in today’s media-saturated world, has almost the same effect as asserting the lie as truth. McCain seems to be implementing the axiom so effectively used by Hitler and propaganda minister Josef Goebbels, that the greater the lie, the more it will be believed.
I turned to Google to help me find neutral information. Websites such as Jewish Americans for Obama at www.jewishamericans.barackobama.com or Rabbis for Obama at www.rabbisforobama.com counter the bias and distortions of Jews against Obama at http://jewagainstobama.wordpress.com and http://democrats-against-obama.org.
As a communication professor, I teach students to obtain information from neutral sources to guide their political decisions. Much of Fox News and MSNBC shows such as Keith Olbermann’s Countdown and The Rachel Maddow Show selectively present news as “infotainment.” Even though I agree with the politics of Olbermann and Maddow, it occurred to me, if Obama wins, will they have to put themselves out of their jobs because their role is to entertain as much as to inform?
Because the campaign has turned to considerations of the person rather than the issues themselves, I believe that Jews can be reassured with Barack Obama as president of the United States. AIPAC speaker Elias Saratovsky convinced me that Obama is good for the Jews because of Obama’s support of issues traditionally of concern to Jews, even though that answer is no longer enough for me to vote for a candidate.
I am also concerned about the Bradley Effect, referring to the candidacy of Los Angeles Mayor Bradley’s gubernatorial run in 1982. Opinion polls indicated that Bradley was a shoo-in. But when the voting was tabulated, Bradley lost. With 20:20 hindsight, pundits concluded that latent racism prevented people from actually pulling the lever for a black man.
Such people will tell pollsters that they are undecided or that they are likely to vote for a black candidate (who is running against a white candidate). Yet in the privacy of the voting booth or voting absentee, the white opponent wins.
Obama, with a Caucasian mother and an African father, is as “white” as he is “black.” Unfortunately, those who feel “mistrust” for Obama because of vague reasons they are unable to articulate might very well succumb to the Bradley Effect. Awareness of this phenomenon might help those with latent racism vote independently of it.
I have chosen Obama over McCain because of Obama’s history as a community organizer that meshes with my personal ideals for a better society, because of his experience helping the downtrodden as a civil rights attorney when he could have earned significantly more at a prestigious law firm, and because of his intelligence, which sets him apart from his opponent and predecessor in the White House.
I have chosen Obama over McCain because Obama has motivated young people to register to vote in unprecedented numbers. Obama’s appeal to young people indicates to me that he truly represents new ways of thinking. Obama’s naiveté, about which some bloggers complain, is part of his youthful, idealistic optimism. To reference Einstein, you cannot solve problems with the same mindset that gave rise to them. Obama’s ability to think and motivate others will result in the change all of us are seeking.
I have chosen Obama over McCain because of unacceptable aspects of McCain’s temperament and behavior. McCain’s capricious suspension of his campaign so he could rush to Washington to fix the financial crisis (which he did not); his temper, which he, himself, has publicly acknowledged; and his abandonment and subsequent divorce of his first wife, horribly disfigured in an auto accident, are evidence that McCain lacks the values and stability needed to lead the United States of America.
The Talmud proclaims, “The world exists on account of people who are able to restrain themselves during a quarrel (BT Hul.89a).” I have seen such restraint in Obama but not in McCain in their face-to-face encounters. I hope that my pro-Obama readers will be reinforced in their decision to vote accordingly. I hope that undecided readers will be motivated to vote for Obama.
I hope that my pro-McCain readers will read this article as written in the spirit of heaven, and will afford me the dignity of the validity of my perspective. Is it too much to hope that such a listener will be open to any persuasion inherent in my rationale? This kind of argument can be a sacred encounter in which parties let go of defensiveness and open their minds to the needs and concerns of the other.
I hope that next Friday night, the congregant who would insult me because of my political beliefs, will instead, listen and understand that I have a right to my point of view. And after a moment, I promise, in turn, to listen to him. Arguing in this manner enhances relationships instead of destroying them and, by definition, is blessed in heaven. This kind of argument (which I call dialogue) will not violate the peace of Shabbat.
Dr. Miriam L. Zimmerman is professor emerita at Notre Dame de Namur University in Belmont, Calif.
Updated 10/14/08
Dr. Miriam L. Zimmerman is professor emerita at Notre Dame de Namur University in Belmont, Calif.
