Britannia Radio

Perspective of a N.J. Rabbi - unfortunately true enough... 


Politics & USA Lists



This short article epitomises the psychology of politics - in both our nations!

One point it makes is perfectly clear:



The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to

compete against free stuff.

Every businessman knows this; that is why the "loss leader" or the

giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama's America is one in

which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on

food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they

did, by the tens of millions; those who - courtesy of Obama - receive

two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both

disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off

the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to

vote. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.



S

==========







Please take a moment to digest this provocative article by a Jewish

Rabbi from Teaneck , N.J. It is far and away the most succinct and

thoughtful explanation of how our nation is changing. The article

appeared in The Israel National News, and is directed to Jewish

readership. 70% of American Jews vote as Democrats. The Rabbi has

some interesting comments in that regard.

Rabbi Steven Pruzansky 

Rabbi Pruzansky is the spiritual leader of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun

in Teaneck , New Jersey .

The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is

that Americans voted for the status quo - for the incumbent President

and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship,

incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility. And

fewer people voted.

But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the

facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the

chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of

Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he

ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could

have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited

from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.

Romney lost because he didn't get enough votes to win.

That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost

because the conservative virtues - the traditional American virtues -

of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and

aspirations to moral greatness - no longer inspire or animate a

majority of the electorate.

The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to

compete against free stuff.

Every businessman knows this; that is why the "loss leader" or the

giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama's America is one in

which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on

food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they

did, by the tens of millions; those who - courtesy of Obama - receive

two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both

disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off

the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to

vote. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.

The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation of the

secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of

winning an election in which "47% of the people" start off against him

because they pay no taxes and just receive money - "free stuff" - from

the government. Almost half of the population has no skin in the game

- they don't care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating

jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being

borrowed from their children and from the Chinese. They just want the

free stuff that comes their way at someone else's expense. In the end,

that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and

does not bode well for the future.

It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against

such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence,

the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for

a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay

for it.

That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable

conclusion that the electorate is ignorant and uninformed. Indeed, it

does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters - the

clear majority - are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and

raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that too many

people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama

did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his

first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a

rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is

not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the

poor and cutting taxes for the rich.

During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai

Stevenson: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!"

Stevenson called back: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

Truer words were never spoken.

Obama could get away with saying that "Romney wants the rich to play

by a different set of rules" - without ever defining what those

different rules were; with saying that the "rich should pay their fair

share" - without ever defining what a "fair share" is; with saying

that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to "fend for themselves"

- without even acknowledging that all these government programs are

going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit

spending.

Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a

Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women

that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could

appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and

shipped to Mexico and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the

current immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of the

incestuous relationship between governments and unions - in which

politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which

the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which

the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes,

etc., even though the money is gone.

Obama also knows that the electorate has changed - that whites will

soon be a minority in America (they're already a minority in

California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from

the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that

attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different

world, and a different America . Obama is part of that different

America, knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won.

Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective

sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged

in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his

"negative ads" were simple facts, never personal abuse - facts about

high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and

prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though,

Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil's bargain of making

unsustainable promises.

It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan - people of

substance, depth and ideas - to compete with the shallow populism and

platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy -

of class warfare - never reaching out to Americans as such but to

individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these

minority groups. If an Obama could not be defeated - with his record

and his vision of America , in which free stuff seduces voters - it is

hard to envision any change in the future. The road to Hillary Clinton

in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy - those very economies

that are collapsing today in Europe - is paved.

For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results

demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for

a president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as

hostile to Israel . They voted to secure Obama's future at America 's

expense and at Israel 's expense - in effect, preferring Obama to

Netanyahu by a wide margin. A dangerous time is ahead. Under present

circumstances, it is inconceivable that the US will take any

aggressive action against Iran and will more likely thwart any Israeli

initiative. The US will preach the importance of negotiations up until

the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon - and then state

that the world must learn to live with this new reality.

But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no

permanent empire, nor is there is an enduring haven for Jews anywhere

in the exile. The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the

deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This

election only hastens that decline. Society is permeated with sloth,

greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its

moral foundations.The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only

increase in years to come. The "Occupy" riots across this country in

the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead -

years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the

unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the

successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.

If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone.

And, sad for the world, it is not coming back.