The Meaning of Passover

Dear Barry,

In less than two weeks, the celebration of Passover will begin.  Commemorating the liberation of the ancient Israelites from Egyptian bondage, the week-long holiday begins with the Seder, a traditional meal at which to story of the Exodus is recounted in considerable (some would say interminable!) detail.  The narrative is embodied in a text called the Haggadah which, over hundreds of years has introduced generations of Jews – and not only Jews, as you know from personal experience – to  the story of how God instructed Moses to lead the Hebrew children out of Egypt, helped them escape Pharaoh’s clutches, and, after decades of trekking and turmoil, brought them to the Promised Land.  It is a vibrant tale filled with drama, conflict, peril, miracles, and the eventual triumph of good over evil.

While the Haggadah importantly outlines the order of the Seder, it does much more.  The Hebrew root of the word Haggadah is haggad, to tell.  Not “retell,” but “tell.”  At the beginning of the Seder we declare that we are slaves, not simply that our forebears were slaves.  We pray for our own deliverance, not merely that of our ancestors.  We are asked not simply to remember the Exodus, but to relive it.  We are commanded not simply to recall the lessons of the Exodus story but to actively rededicate ourselves to them.

And what are those lessons?  Here there is a delicious paradox.  Even as we praise the unique love and caring for the people chosen by God, even as we thank the Lord for delivering the Israelites from the darkness of slavery to the light of freedom, we are required to experience our shared humanity with everyone else.  Tonight, we are collectively all slaves, and thus we experience first the deprivation of dignity and individuality at the dark core of slavery followed by the celebration of our deliverance from it.  Secondly, and here is another paradox, the ecstasy of deliverance from slavery at the heart of the Passover narrative is mitigated by our understanding that the world remains imperfect, that others are still denied basic human rights.  Therefore we are required to rededicate ourselves to the effort of repairing a broken world (the principle of tikkun olam).

As you know from your experience as a professor, effective education begins by understanding where the students are.  As Americans, there is no better place to begin to understand the nature and consequences of slavery than to face our own historic experience of the “peculiar institution.”  That’s why our family Haggadah incorporates elements of African-American experience within our more traditional Judaic readings.  In James Weldon Johnson’s folk-sermon “Let My People Go,” from God’s Trombones, we hear a powerful moral chorus linking black and Jewish aspirations for freedom.  And it is hard not to be moved when Roosevelt Charles, a prisoner at the Angola Prison in Alabama, sings “Let My People Go.” 

Our own family’s Haggadah has evolved over nearly half century, reflecting the changing over time of the context in which this timeless story is told.  It includes songs, stories, readings, and prayers that are right for us.  After all, the story is not only universal, but also particular, not only public but also intimate. For the Seder does not merely look back.  It does not only honor history, it also creates memories.  It does not only commemorate freedom, it also celebrates friends and family.  Each year before he died, my father would sing the Yiddish song “Oifn Pripetchok” in which a rabbi speaks to the children about God’s words and urges them to remember their lessons.

And so, while we recall the bonds of slavery that were broken thousands of years ago by our Hebrew ancestors in Egypt, and while we accept our responsibility to continue to combat slavery and injustice in the world today, we also embrace worlds both large and small.  This might be called “a community of Pesach,” a triad highlighting our common humanity, Jewish peoplehood, and a togetherness as family and friends. 

Every journey reflects the relationship between the traveler and the road.  The traditional ending of the Passover Seder expresses the hope that we will celebrate together “Next year in Jerusalem.”   For most of us, we are speaking metaphorically, not making travel plans.  It means reflecting on the root of the term, “Jerusalem,” the city – the center – of peace.  Thus, we end the Seder where we began with a rededication to the idea of wholeness in the world and within our families and in our individual selves. 

Let me close with a traditional wish to you and your family for a ziss’n Pesach, a sweet Passover.

Respectfully,

Larry

March 26, 2012 

Contraceptives and Campaign Contributions

Dear Barry,

I can’t believe that it’s been almost a month since I last wrote you.  Have you missed me?  I’m writing today to both compliment and also criticize a couple of decisions you and your administration have recently made.

On the plus side, I think that the administration’s insistence that sectarian social service providers include contraception in their employees’ health insurance plans is correct, but not for the reasons some of your supporters have put forth.

Let me begin by acknowledging that faith-based social service plays a crucial and laudable role in assisting society’s weakest clients.  Historically, sectarianism has fulfilled a special role in caring for those in need.  It has been long understood that many people feel more comfortable seeking assistance from agencies rooted in their own religious or ethnic communities.  Religiously-based old age homes are the clearest evidence of this propensity.  As a consequence, many service providers structure their institutions around the rites and practices of the sponsoring community.  Although the environment of such agencies may be to a degree sectarian or ethnic, a condition for public support is that they welcome needy clients regardless of background.  In such circumstances, government recognizes as permissable limited particularist practices even though the sponsoring sectarian agency receives government support (e.g., nursing home, Medicare, Medicaid reimbursements, etc.).  What government does not allow, however, is discrimination in service provision.  Social service agencies can neither favor nor discriminate against an individual because of his/her ethnic or religious affiliation.  By accepting public support, social service agencies thereby become agents of government and agree to abide by the rules and regulations of the state.

Non-discrimination, however, is not the same as coercion.  While a Jewish nursing home will provide kosher meals, it cannot insist that the residents practice kashrut in their personal lives.  Similarly – and now I’m finally getting to the point – institutions can be rooted in certain ethical values and beliefs but cannot, unless it is illegal to do otherwise, insist that either service recipients or service providers (i.e., employees) adhere to these same core convictions.  Now let me be specific.  Far from being illegal, contraceptive services are legal and readily available in our country.  Until such time as the law changes (God forbid!), it is the decision of individuals, not of institutions that function in the public sphere, to partake of or refuse to use contraception.  

I guess what I’m trying (rather long-windedly) to say is that the argument I’ve heard from some pro-choice advocates supportive of your decision, which asserts that contraceptive services are more important than religious convictions, is misplaced.  While I happen to agree with that, the stronger argument is that it is a legal – if not a Constitutional – requirement that sectarian agencies abide by the law of the land when functioning in the public interest.  While the Catholic Church (and others) can advocate changes in law and policy, its social service arm is beholden to follow these in its relationship with both clients and employees.  In some sense, the circumstance at work here recalls the old adage, “Who takes the King’s gold, lives by the King’s rules.”

And that brings me to my criticism.  I am disappointed that your campaign has agreed to establish a Super PAC.   In justifying the decision to move forward on this, Jim Messina, your campaign manager, explains that, “We’re not going to fight this fight with one hand tied behind our back. . . .Democrats can’t be unilaterally disarmed.”  I would argue that, far from fighting with one hand tied behind its back, your campaign is holding two hands above its head, signaling surrender.  You’re surrendering to the basest, most venal instincts in American politics today, succumbing to an addiction to money, influence peddling, and access to special privilege and favor by the monied few too often to the detriment of the greater good.  The list of individuals reportedly engaged in the effort to establish Priorities USA Action (a terrible idea deserves a terrible name!) includes men and women intimately involved either in your administration or your reelection effort.  This chorus practically sings the shameless hypocrisy of the supposed separation of a Super PAC from a campaign.

Now, let’s be practical.  My flamboyant rhetoric aside, I’m afraid that this decision by your campaign will make your reelection that much harder.  In my judgment, it will deeply complicate efforts to bring on board the Independents, those who were the key to your election in 2008.  The genius of your earlier campaign was not only the breadth of your vision for the country but also the width and depth of commitment that you created within your base of support.  And you achieved that by not participating in the federal election system, by going your own way.  Sadly, you seem to be turning your back on what worked so well for you last time around.  As today’s Times article begins, “President Obama is signaling to wealthy Democratic donors that he wants them to start contributing to [a Super PAC], reversing a long-held position. . . .”  In the face of the anticipated and unlimited spending by fat cats through the Super PAC, the $25, $50, and $100 donor is likely to feel him/herself becoming first marginalized, then invisible, then extinct.  They, and the non-donors who so enthusiastically came out to the polls on your behalf, will need to be courted assiduously this time around, especially in light of the continuing strain under which so many of them continue to live.  I fear that, having decided to go the Super PAC route, you will need to work that much harder to energize your base.  Maybe PUSAA will do that?  Always a possibility, of course, but the generally negative thrust of Super PAC ads to date doesn’t leave one feeling greatly optimism.

Sorry to have gone on so long, and I promise to write again sooner.  I know you have more important things to do other than sit around and read this stuff.

Respectfully,

Larry

February 7, 2012          

Letter #3 -- Ron Paul and You

Dear Barry,

What’s the takeaway for you from last night’s New Hampshire primary?  I would urge you to look carefully at Ron Paul’s results.  Whatever your re-election campaign has learned about Mitt Romney as your putative opponent this Fall, I think that Ron Paul’s success may provide for you a useful opening (if not a sobering warning) in facing the national electorate this time around.

In 2008, Paul received 7.8% of the vote in New Hampshire’s Republican primary and finished a distant fifth.   This time, he finished second with 23%.  More importantly, press accounts report that over half of all the votes cast in yesterday’s primary came from so-called “undeclared” voters – the crucial, and heavily courted Independents.  Of these, more voted for Paul than for any other candidate.

Why?  How is it that Paul did so much better this time than last? His is, after all, a protest candidacy.  But what, exactly, is he protesting? What is his appeal to the electorate? His positions on monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank, and America’s role in the world are not new and did little to promote him in the past.  What is resonating in 2012, however, is his profound mistrust of government, his stinging judgment that government continues to fail the American people, and his caustic disbelief that it can do anything to correct itself.  Hence his conclusion that the best one can hope for from government is that it get off our backs.  In sum, Paul’s message reflects the anger and disappointment that many Americans, themselves not merely hurting in the aftermath of the recession but still immersed in it, feel about their government.

In your 2004 Keynote Address at the Democratic National Convention you observed,

 [F]or alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga, a belief that we’re all connected as one people. . . .

It is that fundamental belief [that] I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family.

This call to a bedrock American belief in our national exceptionalism and common purpose fired the imagination and energy of those who became your core supporters in 2008 campaign.  It fueled the outreach to formerly disaffected Americans, including the young, the poor, minority group members, and independent voters of all stripes.  Events have transpired that have driven many of these same folks to despair, even cynicism, about government.  Some have found that Ron Paul articulates their current situation. 

My hope is that your campaign will see in the Ron Paul phenomenon the importance of reminding the American people of the values and vision that undergird the way you approach governance.  There will be much discussion and debate of the way you have and have not succeeded in actualizing your program.  That’s fair comment and criticism.  But what you and your campaign need to insist on, I believe, is that your commitment to “find[ing] the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort” (2008 Acceptance Speech) remains unshakable.

Respectfully,

Larry

January 11, 2012  

  

Letter #2 -- Government and the Middle Class

  

Dear Barry,

WNET, our public television station, reported tonight on its “Need to Know” program about the strains facing the people who live and work on Main Street in Nashua, New Hampshire.  There are a couple of general themes and reflections that emerged from the program that I’d like to share with you.

First, and most important, is the sadness that my wife Judy and I felt watching the program.  The statistic that 100,000,000 Americans – 1/3 of the population – live below or only slightly above the poverty line is not merely shocking but also infuriating.  Deepening our outrage, moreover, was the human face that the program put on the statistic: 

·      the couple with only part-time employment but $50,000 in medical debt following the premature birth of a child; 

·      the husband and wife with four children whose life savings have been drained from $30,000 to $500 following a series of job lay-offs; 

·      a low-wage newspaper delivery man who never has a day off; 

·      the student who believes that her college debt  will follow her her entire life; 

·      the Main Street businessman who’s closed two or three stores and has now liquidated his entire savings to try to salvage the last. 

The head of an extended household observed that she got paid on Wednesday and, after paying the bills, they were broke on Thursday.  Living paycheck to paycheck, she wondered how her family would survive if she lost her job.  Regrettably, she’s about to find out;  the narrator reported that, shortly after the interview, she was fired.  The Episcopal priest and the local marriage counselor both noted how those who had previously been immune from the consequences of the economic downturn were now victims of it.  The gravamen of these anecdotes, in my judgment, constitutes an indictment of any idea we might hold about the nature and purpose of civil society. 

Secondly, and this is really what I wante to share with you in this letter, is the sense of betrayal toward government expressed by the people in the program.  These are good people;  no one is looking for a handout.  They are looking for help in working through their problems. From their perspective, the institutions of government have simply failed them.  They don’t blame Democrats or Republicans, they feel abandoned by both.  As one small businessman put it, he’s making choices, decisions, and concessions every day in the effort to save his business.  Why, he wondered, can’t our leaders in Washington do the same. 

  

The job numbers reported today suggest an upward trend.  If it continues like this for another few months, the pundits say, it will help you politically in seeking re-election.  You yourself observed that, while positive, the increase in the number of jobs created is far from satisfactory.  You are correct, and I hope that the circumstances faced by good people in Nashua, NH – multiplied 10s of millions of times across the country – will shape your own actions in the days, weeks, and months ahead. 

The dilemma, of course, is that political discourse in an election year is unavoidably polarizing.  We are more attuned to sharp elbows rather than handshakes, to ranting instead of reasoned dialogue.  The disconnect between the frantic bombast of the candidates traipsing across New Hampshire in advance of next Tuesday’s primary and the quiet desperation of the people interviewed on “Need to Know” is jarring.  I fear that, when the contest is joined by the Democrats this fall, we will continue to be assailed by accusations, self-serving pronouncements, and lugubrious predictions of national decline if the other candidate is elected. 

I’m a realist.  [Well, at times I’m a realist.]  I know that you will be required to put on your political track shoes and run the race.  But I also believe that by temperament – and by personal experience – you are inclined toward comity.  Though people like myself were often frustrated by and critical of your willingness to find common ground with an obstinate, often unreasonable (to us) opposition, your electoral success in 2008 speaks to the value of that approach.  The American people might not agree on what work they want government to undertake, but all the polls reveal that they want a government that works.

Respectfully,

Larry
January 6, 2012    

Letter #1

Dear Barry,

An introduction and a disclaimer.   I'm a retired Jewish communal professional who labored in the public policy vineyards for 30 years.  Broadly speaking, my vocation's roots reach into the prophetic tradition of Judaism with its commitment to the principle of tikkun olam, the repair or restoration of a broken world.  In secular terms, our efforts were focused on what might broadly be defined as a social justice agenda: first amendment freedoms of speech and religion, safeguarding the wall of separation between church and state, support for a strong public education system, nurturing intergroup and interreligious relations, combating racism and bigotry,  fighting poverty and economic injustice, advocacy for international human rights, assuring the continuing support for Israel as a strategic and democratic partner of the United States, and advocacy for a generous and welcoming immigration policy.

I'd like to believe that, in retirement, I maintain the same general sympathy for the "weak clients" and "voiceless" in our society that I had as a communal professional.  I know that I am still firmly committed to finding ways to address pressing public challenges.  Estimable, high-minded goals are mere rhetoric unless pursued smartly.  Like many Americans, I share your vision of a post-partisan governance, of decision-making that transcends needless political rancor and venal self-interest.  I bristle at the ineffectiveness of Congress to conduct the nation's legislative business.  Subsequent to the failure of Congress to reach a deficit-reduction agreement I wrote on Facebook, "There is much to debate as to what are the necessary next steps to restore and revive trust in our government and hope for the future. But, in the face of these momentous issues, the preening paralysis of our elected officials is both unpardonable and unforgivable."  Both liberal and conservative friends agreed with me.  I know that you share that general frustration, and I want to work with you to overcome it, to point us as a nation in a new direction. 

Now the disclaimer.  Calling my blog "Dear Barry" is not meant as any disrespect for you or the office of the president.  In fact, it is really the opposite.  When I read Dreams from my Father, I was deeply moved by the intimacy and affection for you shown by your Kenyan relatives.  The warmth, high spirits, and unalloyed joy with which they guided your African journey was moving.  While always supportive, subsequent posts may find reasons to engage with you critically, please know that I do so from the same supportive place of your Kenyan relatives.

I look forward to sharing ideas with you between now and the election.

Respectfully,

Larry
January 3, 2012