A CAVEAT OF YOUR CHOOSING

I am so sick of reading quotes like this:

I am pro-choice, but I must say that with the caveat that I have never had to make that decision, and I don’t know if it’s a decision I could make myself. It’s one of the hardest decisions any woman could ever have to make.

That’s Connecticut GOP Senate candidate Linda McMahon qualifying her self-description as “pro-choice” by adding that she herself might not choose an abortion if she had the choice. Guess it could be that she says “caveat” to distinguish herself from some abortion-happy pro-choice stereotype she doesn’t buy into herself. But the plain reading of her quote is that she’s not that pro-choice because she might choose against abortion. Which is bogus. Unfortunately, McMahon’s quote echoes the most common media frame on the abortion debate: pro-choicers pushing abortion across the board, anti-choicers pushing back against it, and women somewhere in the middle making hard choices. Meanwhile, back in reality, it’s pro-choicers who believe women should be able to make those sometimes hard choices at all. And when the government or the boss tries to force women not to give birth, it’s pro-choicers who have those women’s backs.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ON TV

Alyssa has an interesting pair of posts up about violence against women on TV:

Is it disturbing that some directors and writers treat violence against women as a joke, or as a form of glamor? Absolutely. But I’m not necessarily against all portrayals of women as under attack. If those portrayals illustrate and make clearer to people the hideousness of rape, of murder, of intimate partner violence, I’m hard-pressed to say they shouldn’t exist.

For me, the distinction here is really between exposure and endorsement. I think generally we liberals are more likely to criticize media for what they endorse (“that scene is a sympathetic portrayal or rape”), whereas conservatives are more likely to criticize media for what they expose us to (“that scene shows graphic sex”). I wrote more about this here. I’ll be the first to admit though that the distinction often becomes hazy in practice. Take Lars von Trier’s movie Antichrist: defenders claim its long graphic portrayal of extreme emotional and physical abuse of a woman really is sympathetic to her (or even that she is a stand-in for the male director); critics accuse the director of reveling in the misogyny and lacking irony when he has the victim say that maybe women deserve all their suffering because they are fundamentally evil. Personally I’ve found the criticisms more compelling, but I won’t come down strongly without seeing the movie. And I don’t want to see it.

HISTORY: NOT OVER YET

I was surprised to see Ross Douthat, in commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall, invoke Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History, a post-Cold War tract whose star has fallen somewhat since 9/11. Fukuyama argued that whereas the 20th century was marked by intellectual crisis between liberal democracy and its ideological competitors, fascism and communism, once the Soviet Union fell, only liberal democracy was left standing. Now, Fukuyama argued, there is no viable, transnational ideology remaining to compete with liberal democracy, which satisfies a human aspiration for freedom that the Cold War proved to be universal. Thus: the end of history. Liberal democracy is here to stay, and things will not get too much better or worse from here on out. Since his book came out, of course, Fukuyama has gotten slammed by critics on the right convinced that with the Islamist Menace, what we’re actually in is not the End of History a la Fukuyama, but the Clash of Civilizations a la Samuel Huntington.

The stronger critique of Huntington, I’d say, comes from the left. Fukuyama describes, in Douthat’s words,

the disappearance of any enduring, existential threat to liberal democracy and free-market capitalism.

Like Huntington, Douthat places “liberal democracy” and “free market capitalism” in the same breath. Like two syllables on Sesame Street that inch closer together until they become a single word. On a global scale, the ideological competitor to democracy – to one person, one vote, people’s meaningful exercise of voice over the decisions that impact their lives – is laissez-faire capitalism.

Thomas Frank’s One Market Under God offers a great (and very funny) exploration of how acts of consumerism get rebranded by elites as the new acts of citizenship and the market is christened as democratic. But markets are not democratic. And as Michael Moore reminds us with a confidential CitiGroup memo in his new movie, the people who the markets award the most power know this (as he says, the bottom 99% of the population “have 99% of the votes”).

Who will decide what happens to natural resources or public sector jobs in a third world country? The majority of the people who live there, or international elites with structural adjustment plans and threats of turmoil? Who will decide whether a group workers for a union? The majority of the people who work there, or managers that wield the power to harass and fire them?

Those questions will make history.

ELECTION PREDICTIONS FOR TOMORROW

Just for fun, here’s how I’d rank tomorrow’s banner elections in descending order of likelihood the good (or at least better) guys win:

New Jersey Governor (Corzine)
Maine LD 1020 (Keep Equal Marriage)
New York Congress (Owens)
Virginia Governor (Deeds)
New York Mayor (Thompson)

I’m guessing one of these five (Corzine) will turn out well. If two do, count me happy (not counting the safe Democratic House seat in CA). But whatever happens, I won’t conclude anything big about the national climate from it.

SUSPICIOUS

The Inquirer’s Monica Yant Kinney wrote a weird, cheeky, somewhat sympathetic, mostly condescending piece on friends of mine who were arrested in civil disobedience for healthcare reform. The weirdest line:

I had to listen a few times before it hit me that the members of the Student Healthcare Action Network want the government to have more control over their lives. Aren’t college kids supposed to be suspicious of politicians and power?

Yant Kinney also suggests, in true Reason Magazine style, that the horrors of George W. Bush should have made kids more anti-government. Perhaps Yant Kinney is not aware that the students of the civil rights movement, her reference point for student activism, supported the dread hand of government regulation in the Civil Rights and Voting acts of 1964 and 1965. Or maybe she thinks the kids were confused then too.

TO THE POLLS

It just occurred to me that, as a newly re-registered Pennsylvania voter, I have to plan when to go to the polls Tuesday. I must have been unconsciously waiting for a ballot to show up in the mail, like it always did in California, where I was a permanent absentee voter (along with about half of the state). Gotta say that, after once finding it anticlimactic when I didn’t vote in person, I’ve gotten pretty used to the convenience of always voting from home. Why don’t we do it in Pennsylvania?

(My first vote: 2002, Ed Rendell for Governor and Dan Wofford for House – voted absentee from college)

THIS INTRIGUED ME ENOUGH TO TRANSCRIBE IT

Lest it be said that I only transcribe Slate’s Culturefest for the sake of criticism, I wanted to highlight this insight from Stephen Metcalf from last week:

…The real function of satire right now in American life, which is sort of two-pronged. One is it’s a psychic compensation for those of us who look at American public life and regard it as insane, ridiculous, and completely unsatisfying. By way of compensation, we tune into Colbert and the Daily Show, and maybe whatever other sources, Saturday Night Live. And we laugh. I don’t want to minimize that at all, but as an agent of change, or a place to place one’s political hopes, I think one is going to walk away extremely amused and very disappointed.

And then secondly it’s an avenue of forgiveness for everybody in American life almost regardless of what they’ve done. I mean one half expects to turn on Saturday Night Live and discover that Charles Manson is hosting and doing funny skits about Sharon Tate and we’re all expected to forgive him. The ability to poke fun at yourself has become now a universal absolution really in American life. And the best example being George Bush, who takes us on a hopeless war that kills thousands of Americans and god knows how many Iraqis, and somehow he’s still likable because he can make fun of himself because he makes a short film skitting about how he can’t find the weapons of mass destruction…There is a way – Dana am I completely wrong about this, am I just being a total grouch – there is a way in which satire has become politically neutralizing, which is exactly the opposite of what it’s supposed to be.

No, Stephen, you are not just being a total grouch. Beyond that, I’ll just say for now that I’m ambivalent about prong #1, and I totally agree about prong #2.

TZOM KAL (AN EASY FAST)

Here’s a link to a Yom Kippur sermon I gave back in college about teshuvah/returning. And here (below) is one about the reading from the book of Jonah:

A few years ago, on a Yom Kippur much like this one – less late, more humid, equally hungry, my Rabbi stood up, looked across the sanctuary and said, “This is where Isaiah asks us, what the hell are you doing here?”

It’s not a flip question, although it’s irreverent; it’s not an easy question, although it’s direct. It may be the hardest of a barrage of difficult questions which weigh down on us on this weighty day. As we ask what we’ve done in the past year and what we’ll make of the next, we must start with this day – why, every year, do we spend these twenty-some hours judging, flagellating, and starving ourselves? Yom Kippur gives us the time to be all four children of the seder – sometimes intellectuals probing the meanings of our shared experience, sometimes as simple people seeking a foundation onto which to grasp, sometimes searching only for a question from which to begin. And too often, as strangers, spectators at the scene of someone else’s ceremony, someone else’s struggle.

Today we read about a stranger, a man we first meet as ben-amiti – “the son of my truth,” someone who can marshal truth behind him but cannot grapple with it in front of him, who gets it but fundamentally doesn’t get it. “Kum, laich,” God compels Jonah – get up and go. Jonah is one for two – “vayikam yonah livroach” – he got up, to flee. Faced with a moral crisis, Jonah rises so as to retreat milifnai Adonai – from in front of God, from facing God. And in the same breath, vayaraid – he goes down, in the first of a series of descents which will punctuate the narrative. The next of these descents will be into the hold of the boat, the belly of the boat as often translated, or perhaps the womb of the boat as best understood. It will be there that the Captain will find Jonah, sleeping fetus-like in a boat on the verge of destruction at sea – the lightning outside his window like a picket line marching through the garden of Eden. “Mah l’chah,” the Captain asks him. “What’s with you? What do you have? What is yours? What are you ready to own?” “Kum, kra,” – “Rise up, and cry out.” And again, Jonah rises, but in silence.
”Vayipol hagoral al Yonah” – and the lot they cast comes down on Jonah, weighs down on him, presses from above, and instead of rising he dodges in descent. Unable to reckon with his complicity in the harm visited on his fellow travelers, Jonah seeks solace in sacrifice and security in self-imposed exile. He casts himself from the boat into the sea, where he sinks into another moist belly – this time, of a great fish. And inside the fish, Jonah – whether out of contrition or convenience – prays to God in gratitude, and pleas with God to let him out so as to make good on a promise to offer greater praise. Be careful what you wish for. Jonah finds himself vomited out of the fish and back on land.

But why leave the fish? Presumably, if Jonah could last three days in there, he could have lasted three more days. Or weeks. Or months. No reason to think that belly was particularly uncomfortable. Rather, perhaps what’s most impressive, and most damning, about Jonah, is the way he manages to experience a life-threatening disaster, make a dramatic sacrifice, go through a drastic change of scenery, and still recreate precisely the conditions, challenges, and range of experiences which he left behind. Who’s to say the belly of a boat beats the belly of a bass? Both are slippery and solitary. Neither demands human interaction, or moral responsibility. Jonah moves from one womb to another. This, unfortunately, is something that we as a community know all too well how to accomplish. Daniel Boorstin in Hidden History once wrote that when we become tourists, “we go more and more where we expect to go. We get money-back guarantees that we will see what we expect to see. We go more and more, not to see at all, but to take pictures. Like the rest of our experience, travel becomes a tautology. The more strenuously and self-consciously we work at enlarging our experience, the more pervasive the tautology becomes. When we seek experience elsewhere on earth, we look into a mirror instead of out of a window, and we only see ourselves.” We live in a community here which too easily fosters tourists and quite compellingly needs travelers.

Last year, speaking in this space, Kofi Annan asked, “What will move us? What will shake us?” While we’re told Jonah prayed to be let out of the whale, the text gives little indication as to whether he would ever have brought himself to leave on his own accord. Was Jonah, who fled downward to escape God’s call to action, moved to return to the world, to leave the womb, by the churnings of his conscience – or by the churning of the stomach of the fish?

When we think about sin – a word many of us have difficulty using but few of us have ease ignoring, we tend to talk a great deal about descents into Hell, and less about descent into convenient hideaways from moral challenge. When we talk about inscriptions – whether inscribed up above or written by our own hand – we think a great deal about a book of Life and a book of Death, and less about our choices to live full, challenging, painful lives – or not to. HaYom Harat Olam, we chant on Rosh HaShanah – today the world was created. Why ten days, then, before Yom Kippur? What the hell are we doing here? Maybe today we leave the fish. Maybe this day is about being birthed or vomited into the world that’s been waiting for us. Adam shotaif b’ma’asey bereishit, the Rabbis taught – man is a partner in the ongoing work of the creation of the world. But one of the obstacles to partnership is that one partner is often more psyched about partnership than the other.

One of the lessons of the Jonah story, perhaps, is that we are not born all at once, but rather in halts and stops. Jonah goes to Ninevah, a huge and wealthy city, and tells its leaders, a couple thousand years before Led Zepellin, that there are two roads they can go down, but there’s still time to change the road they’re on. Hochiach tochiach, the Torah instructs – critically you must reproach, and Jonah rises, so to speak, to the occasion. He carries out perhaps the basic foundation of ethical monotheism and the central demand of liberal democracy: he speaks justice to power. And then he nosedives in a downward spiral from which he won’t fully have risen as the text closes. As Ninevah commits to change its ways, Jonah once again becomes set in his. Deprived of the fire and brimstone narrative he was expecting, cowed by the complexity of a communal struggle for greater justice as compared to a divine act of retribution, Jonah is rendered bitter, and resentful. He becomes only more so when he sees the divine punishment he was gunning for meted out against a leafy plant he found materially useful.

Jonah writes himself out of his own narrative with a convenient dichotomy – he doesn’t help Ninevah because it’s huge and distant, and he doesn’t help the plant because it’s small and immediate. These rationalizations are not new, and they haven’t gone out of style. It’s easy to perceive a world of institutions which are small, self-sufficient, and eternal, and institutions which are massive, complex, and inaccessible. It’s convenient to render involvement in a cause in which you don’t see a personal stake as meddling, and involvement in a cause in which you do as selfish. We do it every day.

Jonah never reaches Tarshish, the city to which he planned to sail away to escape divine responsibility entirely. So the text leaves us to construct what such a place would look like and where it would be. What are the habits, traditions, institutions, and practices which foster the insularity and alienation which Jonah seeks in Tarshish? Where can a man be an island? How does one travel into and out of the islands we fashion for ourselves and the islands we fashion out of ourselves? Would we know Tarshish if we lived there? Would we know Ninevah if we lived there?

Most of us in this room today are members of the Yale community in New Haven, and members of the Jewish community in the United States – both disproportionately affluent, both built on traditions and values of struggle and engagement, both at a crossroads between mobilization for just partnership and the politics of insularity. This is the time of year for an accounting of what, as individuals and as communities, we have contributed and what we have failed to contribute, and who has suffered for it. This is the time of year to recognize Ninevah and Tarshish and to build the cities and communities we want to inhabit. This is when we leave the womb and determine what the hell we’re doing here.

Fasting, Isaiah warns us, is not enough. “Behold, while you are fasting you engage in business, and your workers you continue to oppress! Behold, you fast in strife and quarrelling, and with a meanly clenched fist you strike.” But we know that to open our hands and our hearts is a difficult task. “Is not the fast that I desire,” asks Isaiah, “the unlocking of the chains of wickedness, the loosening of exploitation, the freeing of all those oppressed, the breaking of the yoke of servitude?” This imperative – to pursue social justice and work for liberation – cannot be isolated from another one: to cry out, in Isaiah’s words, “like a shofar – tell my people of their transgression, the house of Jacob, their mistakes.”

Isaiah calls on us to be repairers of bridges, restorers of roads home. Today, here, we build bridges within and between ourselves, within and between our communities, within and between our values. Tonight we break our fast and start the physical construction work. Tonight, traditionally, we begin to build our sukkot, our fragile, open, exposed homes without walls which manifest the potential and the path for our redemption.

When we build a home, we claim a place, and own ourselves. We struggle to answer the question the Captain asked Jonah in the storm – “Mah l’chah?” Literally, what is yours? We struggle to answer God’s question to Moses at the Reed Sea: “Why do you cry out to me?” We struggle to answer God’s question to Adam and Eve in the garden: “Where are you?” We strive, like Eve, to seize moral knowledge and ethical responsibility, even at the cost of the idyllic pre-consciousness of the garden. We strive, like Nachshon, to take the first steps out of the stable suffering of slavery and into the troubled, tumultuous birth canal that leads through to the long march ahead. We strive, like Jonah, to leave the whale – and to learn from the mistakes he made once he reached dry land.

If, as Rabbi Ponet suggested last night, we Jews are an ever-dying people, then we must as well be a people that is continually being born. If, as Isaiah, suggests when we call out God will answer with the word of Abraham – hineni – then we must be first to utter it: Hineni, here I am. We must own our city and our nation not as tourists but as citizens, and own our community not as strangers but as partners. We begin to know what the hell we’re doing here, when we begin to know where here is and why it is our place to be there. We must dare, in Elliot’s words, “to disturb the universe,” so that we might too find, at the end of all our journeys, linear and cyclical, physical, temporal, and ethical, that we are home, and that we know the place for the first time.

DAYS OF AWE-KWARD

First, the Family Research Council held its “Values Voters Summit” on Rosh HaShanah. Maybe they figured it was a good way to avoid the embarrassment of having any Jews show up because they thought “Values” actually meant “values.” Or more likely none of them knew or cared when Rosh HaShanah was. That, or they were looking for a way to keep the liberal media away from their conference.

Now, Glenn Beck is calling for a day of “fast and prayer” on…Yom Kippur? Are the right-wingers trying to win us back?

Wonder what the right-of-right-wingers are cooking up for Sukkot…

In unrelated news, Norman Podhoretz just spent a book puzzling over Why Are Jews Liberals?

ON ROSH HASHANAH

Here’s a sermon I put together back in the day for Rosh HaShanah:

Yehuda Amichai, contemplating the same issues of suffering, sound, and sympathetic human experience that bring urgency to the shofar, once wrote:

“The diameter of the bomb was thirty centimeters
and the diameter of its effective range about seven meters,
with four dead and eleven wounded.
And around these, in a larger circle
of pain and time, two hospitals are scattered
and one graveyard. But the young woman
who was buried in the city she came from,
at a distance of more than a hundred kilometers,
enlarges the circle considerably,
and the solitary man mourning her death
at the distant shores of a country far across the sea
includes the entire world in the circle.
And I won’t even mention the crying of orphans
that reaches up to the throne of God and
beyond, making
a circle with no end and no God.”

During Musaf of Rosh HaShanah, we stop and shift gears for a portion of the service which expounds three themes: Malchuyot (God rules), Zichronot (God remembers), and Shofarot (God redeems). Each theme, after the recitation of related texts, is accentuated by nine blasts of the shofar. This morning, I want to share a few thoughts, from a Reconstructionist perspective, about how these three themes inform and grow from our conception of God and our work in repairing the world.

In Malchuyot, we affirm the sovereignty of God. We declare that God rules, and therefore, that God’s law rules. If we follow Mordechai Kaplan’s formulation of God as “The power that makes for…” then here we celebrate God as the Power-That-Makes-For-Justice. Indeed, human societies across the globe, despite obvious disincentives, have developed and nurtured a concept of moral justice, a sense of obligation and imperative to take action irrespective of, or directly opposed to personal or communal self-interest. I see God both as the source of that miracle and as that miracle itself. We often disagree about what constitutes justice. But that’s another issue.

In Zichronot, we invoke God’s remembrance. Here God is That-Which-Hears-the-Tree-That-Falls-In-the-Forest. More important is the implicit and explicit corollary: that God cares, and God acts, be it from above or from within, in the most physical sense or the most abstract. Hence, everything matters, and everything counts: Every act, every pain, every life. God’s memory gives God’s justice some muscle and some meaning.

In Shofarot, we celebrate God’s redemption. Specifically, we recognize God in sound. Here again Judaism enshrines the voice and the word – be they human, divine, or both – as the instruments of social change. Having declared that God is Just, and that God is Knowing, we affirm God as The-Power-That-Makes-For-Change. Let there be light.

Altogether, it’s a nice package. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which we are daily forced to call into question each of the above suppositions. Where is God’s justice? God’s memory? God’s redemption? Is God unjust? Does God forget? Is God silent? I have no good answer to these questions, and I doubt I ever will. But I’m learning to ask other questions as well. The more I see God not only as an entity, but also as a force, a verb, or a process, the more burden and the more questions fall on me and on us. So there are even more questions.

I believe, as many of us do, that there are actions which are objectively right, and actions which are objectively wrong. That doesn’t mean that we can always tell which are which. But let’s say we know – what are we doing about it? If Malchuyot makes God the Power-That-Makes-For-Justice, that means that God is the Power-That-Makes-Justice-Possible. But that power must be actualized. The extent to which justice is absent in the world is both the extent to which God has not brought justice and the extent to which humanity has left that potential dormant.

Ditto for God’s memory. Or make it even simpler. Rather than awareness of the past, we can stay for the moment just with awareness of the present. We live in an age where this is easier than ever – we can turn on the TV and find out on a minute-to-minute basis what’s going on on the other side of the globe. But like God, we are judged not by how much we know but by how much we do. If we know and don’t do, we’re probably better off claiming we didn’t know at all – the implications aren’t quite as bad. Torah, our collective Jewish memory, tells us that God remembered God’s covenant with the Israelites when they were enslaved in Egypt. There are a lot of people out there waiting to be remembered. There are a lot of covenants either never kept or never made.

The Shofarot service, in which the congregation or members of it call out names of shofar-blasts, and the Ba’al Tekiah responds with the desired sound, brings home a point that for me is central to Jewish theology: Religion is a dialogue. A cursory glance at the world we live in suggests that there must have been a breakdown somewhere in that process. But I’m not yet sure what that process is. Maybe it’s we that have been given the giant Shofar of redemption, and are even being hinted what to play – but we can’t hear the signals. We’ve forgotten which is a Tekiah and which is a Shevarim. We’re afraid to make a loud noise. We find comfort in mumbling. Or maybe God has the Shofar, and all we need to do is call out, at the top of our lungs, the words which generations have preserved: Tekiah. Shevarim. Teruah. Maybe the answer is both. But clearly something’s out of sync. We’re not on the right frequency. The resonations we should be hearing, in the crashing of waves and the falling of dew, we’re not picking up. We’ve missed our cue. Or we hear our cue, as loudly as ever, but we forget our next line.

To truly hear and to truly speak are one and the same. Either is incomplete without the other. If we hear the Shofar – a divine mating signal of sorts – and don’t act, we didn’t hear it. If we act, if we speak, without listening, then our words are empty. When we are described in Rosh HaShanah liturgy as a people “who hear the sound of the Shofar,” we are commanded to be a people who gets it in the most profound sense. When we remember the communal experience of the shofar at Sinai, it is through a Torah text that describes us not only as hearing, but as seeing the sound of the shofar. The processes of malchuyot, zichronot, and shofarot each require that we see, hear, feel, even taste that profoundly natural and unnatural sound. We are commanded to blow the shofar and to call out its blasts. Jewish tradition teaches that speech can be murder. What we’ve learned by now is that silence can be murder too.

Michael Walzer concludes his book Exodus and Revolution with three lessons of the Exodus: first, wherever you are, it is probably Egypt; second, there is a better, promised land somewhere out there; and finally, the only way to get there is by marching. It was Abraham Joshua Heschel who described his participation in the March on Washington as “davening with my feet.”

The Talmud debates whether a two-headed child is one or two people. The answer: pour boiling water onto one head, and see whether the other one screams. A Polish peasant who lived adjacent to a death camp was quoted as saying, “When I cut my finger, I feel it. When you cut your finger, you feel it.” That, in a nutshell, is the problem. Not only do we not scream – we don’t even register the pain.

That is, for me, the universally evocative, subversively revolutionary message of the shofar: We must listen, and we must speak. And whether listening or speaking, we must do so with all our heart, and with all our might. We must yell, and we must scream. We must make a beautifully, hauntingly broken sound. And we must do so with all the intensity of the group of Kabbalists who once planned to stand, one on the other’s shoulders, and reach up into the heavens and violently pull the Mashiach down from the sky and onto earth. Only thus, someday, can it be said that God rules, God remembers, and God redeems.

Adoshem, Source of Peace, who makes one all the broken pieces of our world, Adoshem who chose the children of man as partners in the work of creation and redemption – in this broken time, give all of us, all the children of man, all the inhabitants of the earth, the ability to seek, to pursue, to search for, and to make peace in every minute, in every moment, and in every breath, and in all of our actions in the image of G-d.