Rabbi Shumley Boteach
The Jerusalem Post
Free registration required.
The New York Times eviscerated Bill Clinton’s autobiography with a censure that would have finished off any other author…
BILL CLINTON is the product of a 1960s generation which believed authentically in love and goodness but whose intentions ultimately brought no permanent, positive change to the world. Virtually all of the great ’60s initiatives petered out with little to show for it. For all the talk about universal love and global peace, most of that generation’s idealism was jettisoned just as soon as they entered the workforce. Even Clinton ended up dismantling the welfare state once he became president, which went against the grain of the socialist idealism of his youth.
Why didn’t it last? Because it was rooted in emotion rather than conviction. It was founded on a bedrock of feelings rather than morality. The ’60s generation created a world of good and bad that accorded with personal sensibilities rather than absolute standards of right and wrong.
They talked about love, but not in the context of marriage or family. Love became free love, a convenient euphemism for sexual indulgence. They decried the “excesses” of the American military in Vietnam, but not the evils of communism.
But while right and wrong are eternal, emotions are fleeting.
The ’60s generation discovered when they got older that it was more convenient to make money than to save whales, so they dumped their romanticized view of the world and moved to suburbia. It was left to moralists like Ronald Reagan, whose idealism was rooted in biblical notions of good and evil, to continue fighting the Cold War until its triumphant conclusion.
And herein lies the tragedy of Bill Clinton, who came of age in the ’60s. Having rejected religious morality, his generation never internalized the idea of right and wrong or moral restraint.
Liberalism once stood for such virtuous goals as human rights, the dignity of the human person, a woman’s right to vote, and protecting children from exploitation. Today, of course, the word “liberal” has become a pejorative. It is liberals who have ironically fought the US to try to keep the regime of Saddam Hussein in power. It is liberals who defend the grotesque misogyny of the culture’s sexual exploitation of women as “female empowerment.” And it is liberals who have remained tragically silent as our children have been turned into nothing more than a market to whom thongs, condoms, and violent video games are sold.
Indeed, it is conservatives who today fight for all the things that liberals once championed.
Read the entire article on the Jerusalem Post Online website.
“And herein lies the tragedy of Bill Clinton, who came of age in the ’60s. Having rejected religious morality, his generation never internalized the idea of right and wrong or moral restraint.”
I’m appalled that any one would print or post anything as shoddy and scurrilous as this. I’m astonished that a human being actually possesses the depth of malice required to even write it.
The author responsible for this slimy, shoddy piece of yellow journalism doesn’t even have the decency to support this statement with facts or examples, but instead relies on innuendo and inference. Not satisfied with assasinating Cllinton’s character alone, the author then employs sweeping generalizations to attack the moral values of everyone in Clinton’s entire demographic cohort. Are we really supposed to believe that no one born between 1946 and 1958, posesses a sense of right and wrong or moral restraint?
Bill Clinton did not reject religious morality. I recall Bill Clinton going to church EVERY Sunday with his wife. After Clinton’s one moral lapse, an episode of infidelty, he scheduled a long series of counseling sessions with his cleryman. Instead of getting divorced like so many Republicans I could mention, he worked hard to repair and salvage his marriage.
I recall Bill Clinton pushing for federal programs and interventions that would make the lives of ordinary Americans better, like hiring more policemen, banning assualt weapons and implementing family leave. I recall Bill Clinton making the courageous decisions neccesary to balance the budget and put America’s fiscal house in order for future generations. I recall Clinton intervening to stop the ongoing genocide in Bosnia, and to prevent one from occurring in Kosovo. All of these actions were rooted in a deep sense of morality.
How can America ever heal, and how can we ever come together as one people living as children of God when shameful and disgraceful trash like the article above is allowed to seep into and poison our national dialogue?
I think you might be overreacting to the criticism of President Clinton in the piece. First off, it’s an opinion piece, not a news article. Second, Pres. Clinton does serve (perhaps unwittingly) as the poster-boy of post-sixties culture: talented, driven, yet morally rootless and undisciplined.
Rabbi Boteach’s point, while perhaps bluntly made in places, was that this sixties idealism was doomed to failure because it drew from emotionalism rather than religious committment. It’s a fair point for debate I think (I personally agree with it). Also, the argument that the liberal concerns of the sixties have been taken up by conservatives is one that rankles liberals, but by and large correct. Note that conservative (moral and cultural conservatism) does not necessarily mean Republican.
Removing Bill Clinton from the discussion, the most pertinent idea to discuss here is the foundation and effect of the idealism of the 60’s. Fr. Seraphim Rose, in his book Nihilism makes the point that idealistic as it was, the 60’s philosophy was still rooted in materialism and divorced from the cosmic reality of man as created in God’s image and likeness. Therefore it is no surprise that the more culturally powerful expressions of materialism to be found in American business, politics, and sexual license would prevail.
We have two competing visions of man in our culture. The one that prevails most of the time is derived from humanism, Transcendentalism, and refined by Nietzche–man as superman. Man is the measure of all things and can, by his own devices overcome and transcend the ordinary, stultifying morality and culture.
The other which, unfortunately, is today largely maintained only in the Orthodox Church is man as created by a loving God, subject to His Laws to act as steward of and mediator to His creation. We are called to community to worship and serve. In order to fulfill our task, made possible only by the fact that we are created in the image and likeness of our Creator, we must be willingly, lovingly obediant to our own nature as we were created, repenting of all thoughts and actions which are contrary to our actual nature,i.e., sin.
Liberals such as Dean who passionately and genuinely care about protecting human dignity and helping their fellow creatures make the mistake of supposing that governement is the best agent and grantor of that dignity and well being.
Many “liberals” have jettisoned the idea of moral and cultural restraint, using the idea of the self-transcending man as the model to do what they please in the moral sphere. Combined with a powerful government, such ideas can quickly lead to a type of immoral, secular tyranny. It is from these folks that the aggressive, abusive, and destructive attacks on Christianity come.
Unfortunately, many “conservatives” and “libertarians” while giving lip service to traditional religion have, in fact, the idea of the superman at the foundation of their politcal philosophy which gives rise to the types of ideas, actions, and programs that rightly enrage Dean.
Bill Clinton, the political genius that he is was able to have one foot in each of the two camps I mention, without really partking of either.
Orthodox Christians and all others who are striving for an authentic moral witness have more common ground than we sometimes realize. The politicians, the world, and probably Satanic suggestion, strive to keep us apart, to have us enter into the type of argument over politics and personality which the first two posts demonstrate.
Given the abuse Dean has taken on many of these pages, some may be surprised that he is still here. I am not. It is obvious to me that Dean is really committed to genuine social compassion from a Christian understanding. His mistake, in my opinion, is to look to the secular, governmental left for solutions.
It seems to me that if the goal of this website is to be carried forward, out disscussions should not be founded on secular political division, but rather on reaching a more complete and effective understanding of man as God created us.
St. Maximus, the Confessor said, “theology without praxis is the theology of demons”. Surely, we can find a way to translate the revealed truth of our nature and function in communion with God, into an effective, stable, powerful moral witness despite what may be differing politics.
The sixties decade left a legacy that contained both good and bad. Among the more destructive and negative attitudes that emerged during the sixties was a desire for instant gratification and a cavalier attitude towards drinking, drug use and sexual behavior. Many young people in my own age cohort, which came of age several decades later, saw their lives marred by these.
Both our current and former President could be said to be victims of the lenient attitudes toward these unwholesome behaviors that developed during the sixties. Bill Clinton succumbed to the desire for sexual gratification outside the bounds of marriage, while George W. Bush struggled against a serious drinking problem. Both men overcame these problems through prayer and faith, and as such deserve our empathy, not our continuing scorn. Perhaps the true test of a real Christian is to be able to pray for both Clinton and Bush with equal sincerity.
The willingness to question the decisions of government was one of the positive trends to emerge during the sixties. We live in a democracy – questioning our government should be considered a civic duty, not an act of sedition. After all, if Secretary of Defense Robert Mcnamara could harbor doubts about the wisdom of our nation’s Viet Nam policies, even as he helped direct them, why was it unpatriotic for ordinary citizens to express the same misgivings?
Similarly today, doubts about the Iraq war have been offered by General Anthony Zinni, former commander of US forces in Europe, Richard Clarke former counter-terrorism chief, and the former head of the CIA Bin Ladin desk and author of Imperial Hubris. If they can describe the invasion of Iraq as a terrible foreign policy mistake, why can’t ordinary citizens like myself express the same views?
Dean,
1. The 60’s milleu may have contributed to the personal problems of former Pres Clinton and Pres Bush, but the social context does not relieve either of the personal responsibility for resisting temptation as you seem to suggest.
2. I have grave reservations that Clinton has overcome his sexual difficulties which some have characterized as sex addiction. But you are right, we should pray for our leaders with equal sincerity.
3. Can an ordindary citzen question the wisdom of the war in Iraq or any other policy administration? Of course. The only problem I have seen you get into here, Dean, is when your questionning appeared to be more a personal attack on Pres. Bush followed by harranges the logic of which most of us could not follow. You didn’t mention Bill Buckley as one of those who question the policy decision of going to war in Iraq.
4. You don’t address my main point that the 60’s revolution was founded on a radically humanistic/individualistic therefore materialistic view of man. Since such a view grossly distorts and falsifies the true nature of man, no real good can ever come of it.
Good points Michael: (1) The 60’s “revolution” did promote the concept of instant gratification, “if it feels good, do it”. I assume this is part of what you mean by “radically humanistic/individualistic therefore materialistic view of man.” As the children of the sixties matured, hopefully many learned that the pursuit of short term pleasure often works against the goal of long term happiness.
(2)You mentioned “boiling over” and “bubbling over”, in some earlier posts. Our faith does set bounds of civility that many Christians (sinners, of who I am the first) frequently violate. Jesus Christ tells us that we should never even call someone a “moron”. If God loved George Bush enough to help him overcome his drinking problem what does it say about me if I nurture hatred for someone God loved? This doesn’t mean that we can’t disagree with policies, but it does mean we have to stop short of attacking people.
Dean,
The “if it feels good do it” mentality was certainly a core feature of the 60’s which has grafted itself onto our culture. The phrase does catch some of the meaning that I was attempting to get at, but only some. The deferral of pleasure can also be of the same fleshly mentality, just a little more rational.
In addition, the concentration on fleshly sensation (sex, drugs,rock & roll)was evident in the supposedly “spiritual” experiences that were sought. The emphasis was on phenomona rather than on the real communion with God. As the Fathers have always taught, such emphasis leaves a person open to demonic influence. In the end the 60’s was about nacissistic self worship. From that foundation most of the ground work for the culture war that still rages today was laid.
The denial of genuine hierarchy which deprives man of sustenance and order was at the heart of the questionning of authroity you praise. Chaos and darkness are the result.
The maddeningly mundane materialism of the 1950’s gave rise to its evil twin, but there is very little essential difference.
Just one question, you say “The willingness to question the decisions of government was one of the positive trends to emerge during the sixties.” If that is such a positive development, why do give those of us who question the decisions of government on social policy such a hard time?
Michael: Your comments about the role of government sent me scurrying to the internet to search for articles of biblical justifications for government intervention to assist the poor. I found this article by Yale theology professor, Ronal Sider entitled, “Do we Care Enough” http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9909&article=990921
Sider writes: “Similarly, 1 Timothy 5:16 insists that a Christian widow’s relatives should be her first means of support. Only when the family cannot support her should the church step in. Any policy or political philosophy that immediately seeks governmental solutions for problems that could be solved just as well or better at the level of the family violates the biblical framework that stresses the central societal role of the family.
But what role should government play? The earlier discussion of the economic components of justice is central for a biblical view of the role of government: “The Lord…has made you king to execute justice and righteousness” (1 Kings 10:9, Jeremiah 22:15-16). And these two key words—justice and righteousness—refer not only to fair legal systems but also to just economic structures. Again and again the biblical texts call on the king to promote justice and righteousness.
According to Psalm 72, there are oppressors of the poor separate from the state who need to be crushed. State power, despite its dangers, is necessary for society because of the evil power of such exploiting groups. “On the side of their oppressors there was power,” Ecclesiastes 4:1 declares. Without governmental force to counter such oppressive power, there is no one to comfort (Ecclesiastes 4:1). Whether it is the monarch or the village elders (Amos 5:12, 15), governmental power should deliver the economically weak and guarantee the “rights of the poor” (Jeremiah 21:12, 22:15-16).
Sin makes government intervention in the economy necessary. When selfish, powerful people deprive others of their rightful access to productive resources, the state rightly steps in with intervening power to correct the injustice. When other individuals and institutions in the community do not or cannot provide basic necessities for the needy, government rightly helps.
This teaching on the role of government applies not just to Israel but to government everywhere. The ideal monarch was to be a channel of God’s justice (Psalm 72:1), and God’s justice extends to the whole world (Psalm 9:7-9). All legitimate rulers are instituted by God and are God’s servants for human good (Romans 13:1, 4). In this passage, Paul states a positive reason for government (government acts “for your good”) before he specifies its negative function (“to execute wrath on the wrongdoer”). Romans 13 is structurally similar to Psalm 72:1 in viewing the ruler as a channel of God’s authority. All people everywhere can pray with the Israelites: “Give the king your justice, O God.”
Government is an aspect of community and is inherent in human life as an expression of our created social nature. Governmental action to empower the poor is one way we promote the common good and implement the truth that economic justice is a family affair. However, when indirect approaches are not effective in restraining economic injustice, providing economic opportunity to all, or in providing care for those who cannot care for themselves, the state rightly acts to demand patterns of justice and provide vital services.
Does the biblical material offer a norm for distributive justice today? Some would argue that the biblical material only applies to God’s covenant community. But that is to ignore the fact that the biblical writers did not hesitate to apply revealed standards to persons and societies outside Israel. Amos announced divine punishment on the surrounding nations for their evil and injustice (Amos 1-2). Isaiah condemned Assyria for its pride and injustice (Isaiah 10: 12-19). The Lord of history applies the same standards of social justice to all nations.”
This is vicious satire from a certain Betty Bowers, but amusing nonetheless:
“As with all instances when Jesus appears to veer recklessly from the Republican Party platform or asks the onerous or inconvenient, we must call up the Holy Spirit to flutter on our shoulder and interpret scripture nimbly enough to invert its apparent meaning. For example, when Jesus asked all those who followed Him to give away all their possessions, He was speaking to His disciples, who were all notoriously poor. None had a summer home on the Dead Sea. Therefore, in asking them to give away all they had, He was simply asking them to give nothing to the poor, since that is precisely what they had to give. As a Republican, I try to follow this glorious tradition. Besides, Jesus told us that the poor will always be with us and I would never do anything that would risk making my Lord and Savior out to be a liar, dear.”
In all seriousness, it should be asked what is owed to the poor by our government. I believe that a true Christian ethic would not encourage sloth and free handouts to the otherwise able-bodied; I personally don’t mind seeing my tax dollars supplementing the incomes of the working poor, however, of which there are many. It’s also wrong to assume in today’s economy that all who are poor are so by laziness or choice; the recent recession has shown that none are immune to needing temporary assistance, even for those with advanced degrees. It is not anti-Christian to suppose that there is a responsibility on the part of government to assist these folks. However, how to accomplish this without deficit spending is a task for more creative economic minds than myself.
Republicans correctly point out that government has not always provided assistance to the poor in the most effective and efficient manner. I don’t dispute this and agree that there is a need to constantly reassess and redesign federal programs. With nearly one-third of state and federal employees scheduled to retire in the next 10 years, that process of reassessment and redesign seems destined to happen whether people like it or not.
It is overreach however,to assert however that federal programs can never be restructured to perform effectively and/or that government has no role to play in assisting the poor. As Professor Ronal J. Sider states http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9909&article=990921 biblical material provides at least three norms pertaining to distribution of resources to meet basic human needs:
“1. Normally, all people who can work should have access to the productive resources so that, if they act responsibly, they can produce or purchase an abundant sufficiency of all that is needed to enjoy a dignified, healthy life in community.
2. The difference in wealth between the rich and the poor dare not become so great that inequality of wealth, and therefore power, lead to oppression.
3. Those who cannot care for themselves should receive from their community a liberal sufficiency of the necessities of life provided in ways that preserve dignity, encourage responsibility, and strengthen the family.”
The Republican tax cuts for the rich put our nation in blatant defiance of God’s norms for society because they have the effect of “defunding” the ability of government to adress problems of economic injustice and oppression. It is clear that with an estimated half trillion budget deficit forecast by the Congressional Budget Office for the next decade our nation will face the following choices (1) raise taxes back to where they were in 2000, at least for the top tax bracket, or (2) sharply reduce funding for entitlemenmts and programs that assist the poor, or (3) spend ourselves into national bankruptcy.
Liberals had over twenty years and $80 billion dollars to meet Siders’ goals. They failed. It’s time for new ideas.
Further, sound moral objectives don’t justify bad policy, and too much of the policy coming out of Washington has done harm. Ironically, many of the programs designed to alleviate poverty has actually created even more.
I haven’t read Siders’ book, so I don’t know the scope of his treatment of the biblical texts. But it seems to me that he focuses excessively on the role of government in supporting the poor and not enough on the responsibility of individuals in making those moral choices which alone can make widespread charity possible. One cannot force charity; it must be given, not taken. Siders quotes many verses which support the idea that government is a good thing, but he fails (at least in the passages quoted here) in establishing the larger Biblical context, that while those who are faithful to God ought to respect legitimate governments, their ultimate obedience is to the will of God as expressed through the divine word. When the divine word conflicts with worldly governmental concerns, the word takes priority, as it did at Golgotha.
The Bible has at best an ambigious and more typically a negative attitude towards worldly government as something which oppresses the people by pulling them away from experiencing the direct rule of the Lord. I quote 1 Samuel 8:7, 9-18:
The LORD said to Samuel, “Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. Now then, hearken to their voice; only, you shall solemnly warn them, and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.” So Samuel… said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will take your menservants and maidservants, and the best of your cattle and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”
This is hardly a divine mandate for worldly government. Some might argue that modern democracy has overcome the inherent faults of traditional monarchy, but that doesn’t mean that human beings have changed their longing for such things, or that the leadership in democracies doesn’t portray itself in royal terms. We all want someone in charge who is like one of us, and whom we can raise above us and acclaim as king (even if we call them President or Senator), instead of looking beyond to the stern challenge of submitting to God’s direct authority.
The divine critique of worldly government in the prophetic books of the Old Testament and in the writings of the New Testament reaches the point of rejecting kingship in the traditional sense. The Lord points to a different kind of leader: the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, through whose humility and suffering we are shown the way to total obedience to God. To Christians, of course, this image is fulfilled in the person of Christ, who humbled himself to death on a cross and was raised by God above all earthly leaders.
Government as the Bible sees it, then, has a limited worldly function of keeping order and promoting the general welfare. But this happens only inasmuch as those who are governed are governed first of all by the word of God. Government cannot save, and the idea that the health of a society is measured by the extent to which all of its members share in material prosperity falls completely short of the Biblical vision of the Kingdom “which is among us.” This does not mean that we should individually or collectively abandon the poor. But it does mean that to pluck single verses randomly from Biblical texts without having the integrity to put them in their proper context, as Siders does, is to engage in prooftexting and thus invalidate one’s own argument. Siders, a liberal, employs the same intellectually bankrupt approach to the Bible as uneducated literalists. Whatever his good intentions, he gets it wrong.
When the Bush tax cuts were signed into law I saw the amount that was deducted from my paycheck every week go down, which means I directly benefited from the Bush tax cuts. Therefore, my wife and I, who have to live off my single salary of approximately $53,000.00 per year, must consider ourselves rich. At least according to Mr. Scourtes and all other Leftists who decry the “Republican tax cuts for the rich” we’re rich.
Wow, somehow I always thought you had to have a salary at least in the six figures to be rich.
When we have a tax code that treats everyone fairly, maybe Dean’s comments would make some sense. Both the Republican’s and the Democrats have been busy removing as many people from the tax roles as possible, putting more and more burden on those that earn the most.
If the money people have is earned from ingenuity, hard work, and the willingness to take the risk of employing others, why should not that person be able to dispose of it as a matter of free choice. What right to it does the government have. The workman is worthy of his hire. Just because someone has a lot of money, does not mean that he is evil, unjust or corrupt. Some of the most generous, giving people I know are millionaires. They became millionaries by hard work, ethical business practices and geninue care for other people.
Daniel writes, “When the Bush tax cuts were signed into law I saw the amount that was deducted from my paycheck every week go down, which means I directly benefited from the Bush tax cuts.”
Daniel may have benefitted from the Bush tax cut in the short run, but he also incurred, as did the rest of us, the responsibility for paying off the nearly $500 billion annual deficit required to finance that tax cut. According to the Congressional Budget Office this annual borrowing is not forecast to decline significantly over the next decade.
What does $500 billion in new debt a year total over ten years? Answer: $5 Trillion in new debt. What is the annual interest on $500 Billion? Answer: At a 6% interest rate its $30 billion dollars. So over 10 years we will add eventually $300 Billion in interest expenditures to the taxpayers annual debt service.
How much does this cost the average American taxpayer? The 10-year cost of the principal and interest (5.3 trillion) dvided among 250 million taxpayers comes to $21,200 per taxpayer. Thats about $2,100 a year. Why would anyone assume $2,100 in debt to get a $300 or $600 or even $1000 tax cut? For the vast majority of middle-class taxpayers who get will less than $2,000 in tax savings annually the Bush tax cut is a net loss.
Who is financing the national debt? Currently over two-thirds of the US Treasury securities financing our deficit spending are purchased by the Banks of Japan, China and Taiwan. What happens if they stop purchasing our debt? Answer: There will be economic calamity as the value of the dollar will decline sharply, interest rates will soar dramatically.
Why can’t we eliminate the deficit by reducing spending? Nearly seventy percent of the federal budget is devoted to categories considered non-descretionary: Medicare, Social Secuity, Defense and Interest. Spending in these categories is mandated by law or required for national security. With spending on entitlements such as Medicare and social security scheduled to grow in response to an aging population, and the government’s debt service growing as annual deficits continue, the non-descretionary portion of the budget will continue to grow as a percentage of the total budget.
This means that the $500 billion deficit reduction would have to come from the shrinking descretionary portion devoted to everything else. It’s possible that we could realize some savings through the elimination of waste and inefficiency, but most likely this would equal only a small portion of the current deficit.
So the only way we are going to get out of this mess and avoid national bankruptcy is to return taxes to their pre-Bush levels. If you sat on your parish councils would you support a long-term budget that reduced the amount of dues that church members were expected to pay, but plunged your congregation deeper and deeper into debt every year? Of course not! So why would you want your country to do the same thing?