On Economics, Values, and Meaning

As an undergraduate student at Wittenberg University in the late 1970’s, I chose to major in economics in the belief that no other subject so adequately explained the workings of everyday life. By understanding economics, or so I believed, one could understand the efficient allocation of resources, the affects of competition on prices and jobs, the distribution of wealth and income, the proper role of government and law in regulating business and the economy, the impact of advertising on the behavior of consumers, and the realities of business cycles and international trade. The true study of economics is not restricted to quantitative formulas and complex computer models – the stuff of Ph.D. programs – but concerns itself with matters difficult to quantify – political decision making, human psychology, sociology, and culture. Although the days when I debated the merits of John Maynard Keynes and John Kenneth Galbraith, Milton Friedman and Adam Smith, are long gone, the theoretical and practical distinctions of their philosophical differences continue to interest me.

I wish here to reflect not on capitalism or socialism, not on the relative merits of free enterprise versus a centrally planned economy – I wish instead to focus on the morality, values, and ethics of society’s grasp for excess wealth and the growing gap between the rich and the poor. What are the spiritual dimensions of our present economic circumstances? Is there a way to alleviate poverty and suffering, reduce gross inequalities, and improve the quality of one’s life?

Jim Wallis, the founder and executive director of Sojourners, poses such questions in Rediscovering Values: A Moral Compass for a New Economy (Howard Books, 2010). Wallis recently spoke at the Friends Select School in Philadelphia, where he argued that the global economic crisis “provides the rare opportunity to ask some fundamental questions about our most basic values.” He does not approach economics from a left or right framework – he is neither a capitalist nor a monetarist nor a Marxist, neither a liberal nor a conservative – rather, he examines the American economy from the pulpit, as a progressive, socially conscious evangelical preacher with an activist bent. He acknowledges that the 20th century created and distributed a great volume of goods and services with unprecedented efficiency. But he suggests that “with these great advances, the moral weight of our decisions becomes greater than ever before.” Is the purpose of business simply “restricted to turning a profit” or can it become something more? Does self-interest always have to be the prime motivational force of business conduct and personal behavior? Can one make sound financial and economic decisions without sacrificing moral values, fairness, and compassion?

Market forces are important, but the ability and power of markets to solve all social and economic needs has limits. Market values do not govern personal and family relationships, ethics and religion, service to the community, and matters of social justice. It is impossible to place a monetary value on a sense of personal contentment, or a life enriched by poetry, music, art, service to others, and closeness to family and friends. This occurred to me last weekend when I attended a fundraiser at the Abington Friends School, which in the Quaker tradition attempts to instill an appreciation for a simpler life, one of mind and spirit, a life committed to responsible stewardship and community service, with little emphasis on material accumulations. As several teachers and staff wowed the audience with beautiful poetry and song, including original compositions accompanied by piano and guitar, I was struck with how self-satisfied each appeared. Despite modest salaries and little public acclaim, these dedicated mentors and educators displayed a sense of personal contentment rarely seen in the corporate world.

Those who need validation from status symbols and accumulated wealth must often sacrifice a sense of purpose and meaning and personal fulfillment. “Without a clear sense of self, a strong identity, and a community of purpose,” Wallis notes, “our default mode is to identify ourselves by the things we own.” But such an identity is inherently weak and can easily dissolve and be taken away.

For some, the market is sacred and not to be questioned, more sacrosanct than religion. How else to explain a lack of outrage over $20 million severance packages handed out to CEO’s of failing companies, or billions of dollars in bonuses awarded to executives of the very institutions that contributed to our present economic woes, while the jobs of millions of Americans have been eliminated? Where is concern for the common good and a sense of neighborly compassion? Wallis suggests that “a sense of entitlement is not just an attitude we can blanketly attribute to the poor, but is a real problem of many rich people, who believe they are entitled to be treated like kings and queens of old, whether or not they are successful.”

American culture is fascinated with the super rich and the fabulously wealthy; we admire their mansions, covet their fancy cars, emulate their fashion trends and secretly desire invitations to their dinner parties. Our enchantment with wealth causes many of us to buy “things we don’t need with money that we don’t have.” We live in an age of materialism, where mass consumption results in an over emphasis on the clothes we wear, the cars we drive, the houses we own – important sources of identity for many Americans. But what does it say about the ethics and morality of a society that accepts excessive consumerism and gross disparities in income and wealth, while millions of Americans are unemployed, tens of thousands are homeless, millions more are undernourished and uninsured, and half the world lives in extreme poverty?

In the Theory of the Leisure Class, the classic 1899 treatise on wealth, Thorstein Veblen coined the phrase “conspicuous consumption” to describe the lavish excesses of the Gilded Age. He explained that, for a certain segment of the upper class, wasteful luxury and extravagance helped to demonstrate one’s wealth and status. Since Veblen’s day, these excesses have become more prevalent, and at times more profuse. In Richistan: A Journey Through the American Wealth Boom and the Lives of the New Rich (Three Rivers Press, 2007), Robert Frank describes the modern-day practitioners of conspicuous consumption. In one chapter, he examines the super-rich yacht culture, where 100-foot yachts are considered tiny and unimpressive, as 300, 400, and even 500-foot vessels are required to keep pace in this status conscious crowd. In a world where half the global population still lives in extreme poverty, paying upwards of $100 million for a boat seems morally unconscionable.

The gap between rich and poor – indeed, between rich and everyone else – is on the rise. In 1965, the ratio of CEO salaries to average worker pay was 24-to-1. By 2004, that same ratio had risen to 431-to-1. The family of Walmart’s founder, Sam Walton, has an estimated net worth of $90 billion, which translates into one American family with a net worth roughly equivalent to the combined net worth of the bottom 40% of Americans, or 120 million people. And while the CEO of Walmart makes 900 times the salary of the company's average employee, his $17.5 million salary is nothing compared to the salaries paid to CEOs of some of the big financial institutions. In 2005, Richard Fairbanks of Capital One Financial received compensation of $249.4 million. In 2006, Angelo Mosilo, the CEO of Countrywide Financial, which led the way in subprime mortgages and dishonest lending practices, “earned” $141.98 million, ranking him seventh on the Forbes list of best-paid CEOs.

Does anybody really believe that this is a good thing? Does society benefit from such gross income disparities? Wallis argues that “when wealth becomes more and more concentrated, bad things begin to happen to us: social bonds begin to unravel, societal morale erodes, and resentment sets in when we perceive great unfairness.” As I wrote in “Is This Guy Really Worth a Billion Dollars?”, a certain amount of income inequality is a good thing, necessary to promote efficiency, to provide appropriate incentives for hard work and productivity. However, some CEO salaries and wage disparities are simply not justified, and they represent a moral and spiritual failure of our corporate and economic structures. The survival-of-the-fittest mentality, that greed is good and self-interest a necessary force for a sound economy – the notion that, if left to its own devices, the market will work itself out – are concepts that have failed a great many people, even as a select few have prospered. Is it any surprise that the two years in which income inequality was at its highest in this country – 1928 and 2007 – were years that preceded economic collapses?

Some believe that economic inequality is a reflection of one’s value to society, and that those who are rich are deservedly so, while those who are poor have simply not tried hard enough, or have done something wrong. It is easy for many people to forget that wealth is not a reflection of self-worth, or one’s value to humanity, and that much of life’s riches are distributed to those who, through a combination of many complex factors – hard work (up to a point), chance, circumstance, opportunity, and luck – determines one’s fate in life. King Solomon, a man of great wealth in his day, recognized this in the book of Ecclesiastes:

The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.

Recognizing that financial and economic success is not strictly or always the result of hard work, ingenuity, and merit – and that not all who fail to achieve great wealth are somehow less worthy human beings – is a first step in creating a more compassionate society. Somewhere along the way, we seem to have lost sight of the common good; we have failed to recognize that the human race is in dire need of a helping hand, some understanding, and kindness, and that we are all in this journey together. Perhaps a search for meaning and purpose, in our work, in our relationships, in our lives, will lead the way to creating a more just and compassionate world, and an economic system that rewards hard work and success without leaving all others behind.

Eric Holder, American Justice, and the Rule of Law

Let me start with a disclaimer: I personally know and like Eric Holder. He was my boss for three-and-a-half years in the 1990’s when I was an Assistant United States Attorney in Washington, D.C. Before that, he was a well-respected D.C. Superior Court Judge in whose courtroom I appeared on several occasions. He is extremely smart, funny, personable, and sincere. Anyone who has ever worked for him knows first-hand of his public-spirited desire to do what is right and just, consistent with the rule of law and the Constitution.

Holder is under attack by conservative politicians and media pundits for three principled, but controversial decisions. In August, he appointed a special counsel to review whether CIA operatives violated any laws in approving or implementing torture during interrogations of military detainees. In November, he ordered that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (and four others) be tried in federal court, rather than before a military tribunal, for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. And in December, he decided to charge criminally, rather than treat as an enemy combatant, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the alleged “Christmas Day bomber,” who was apprehended after his failed attempt to detonate a bomb in a plane over Detroit.

Charles Krauthammer has declared Holder’s actions “almost criminal.” Senator Lamar Alexander called for Holder to “step down” for failing to distinguish between “terrorists who are flying into Detroit, blowing up planes, and American citizens who are committing a crime.” Rudy Giuliani, who like Holder is a former U.S. Attorney (and should therefore know better), has ridiculed Holder’s decisions to allow Mohammed a fair trial and Abdulmutallab an opportunity to consult with counsel. Dick Cheney has accused Holder of giving “aid and comfort to the enemy.” The list goes on.

It requires only a basic understanding of the facts and of U.S. and international law to realize that Holder’s decisions were correct and that the criticisms against him are nothing but shameful political grandstanding of the most dangerous kind. First, Holder’s decision to treat Abdulmutallab as a criminal suspect had the consent of the FBI, the CIA, and the Pentagon, and the government's handling of the case is consistent with every previous case involving a suspected terrorist apprehended inside the United States. Krauthammer’s fantasies notwithstanding, no law authorizes the U.S. military to seize criminal suspects inside this country and hold them without charge at a military detention camp. Every person arrested in the United States, citizen or non-citizen, whether here legally or illegally, and whether charged with shoplifting, murder, terrorism, or espionage, is entitled to the protections of the U.S. Constitution. It is what makes America a shining example of freedom and democracy to the world.

That the Bush Administration handled two terrorism cases (Jose Padilla and Ali Saleh ahlah al-Mari) differently than Holder handled the Abdulmutallab case, proves that Holder made the right call. Padilla and al-Mari had been arrested in the United States by law enforcement officials and criminally indicted. Both men were subsequently declared “enemy combatants” by President Bush and transferred into military custody, where they were detained without trial and held for long periods of interrogation. Following legal challenges, U.S. courts in both cases found that the government had exceeded its lawful authority. Bush subsequently relented and returned Padilla and al-Mari to federal court, where they were convicted and sentenced.

Ironically, no useful intelligence was gained from either Padilla or al-Mari while held in military detention. By contrast, Abdulmutallab immediately confessed and provided useful intelligence to FBI agents who questioned him for fifty minutes under the “public safety exception” to the right to remain silent. He is now cooperating extensively with the government in the course of his criminal case. That he was Mirandized and provided with counsel has not prevented him from further cooperating. In federal criminal cases, defendants routinely cooperate in the hope of obtaining a more lenient sentence. A carrot often carries more weight than a stick.

Holder’s decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court on the 9/11 terrorism charges is no different than how U.S. administrations from Reagan onward have treated most such cases for nearly thirty years. The official policy of the Reagan administration, which contended with numerous terrorist acts in the 1980’s (e.g., the bombings of the Marine barracks in Beirut and of U.S. Embassies in Beirut and Kuwait; the bombing of Pan American Flight 103; the hijacking of Achille Lauro) was explained by L. Paul Bremer III, Reagan’s Ambassador-at-Large for Counter-Terrorism, during a speech before the Council of Foreign Relations in November 1987:

Another important measure . . . in our overall strategy is applying the rule of law to terrorists. Terrorists are criminals. They commit criminal actions like murder, kidnapping, and arson, and countries have laws to punish criminals. So a major element of our strategy has been to delegitimize terrorists, to get society to see them for what they are -- criminals -- and to use democracy’s most potent tool, the rule of law against them.

The Reagan administration got it right. All of these miscreants – Mohammed, Abdulmutallab, Zacarias Moussaoui, Richard Reid (the “shoe bomber”) – are nothing but common criminals. They deserve to be treated like any other criminal (albeit with added security measures and certain case-specific protective orders). They deserve a fair trial and, once the evidence proves them guilty, to be imprisoned or sentenced to death. Elevating them to a special status adds only to their mystique and gives them the status of hero and martyr among their fellow jihadists.

Circumventing the rule of law, or treating suspected terrorists as “enemy combatants,” holding them without charge, denying them a trial, or not allowing them to consult with counsel serves only to undermine the Constitution and the very foundations upon which our democracy rests. In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamden v. Rumsfeld that the Bush administration’s makeshift military commissions were illegal. These specially created tribunals permitted military judges to exclude detainees and their civilian counsel from major portions of their trials, and to prohibit them from ever learning of the evidence against them during those portions. The rules also allowed military prosecutors essentially to offer any evidence in support of the charges, including hearsay, unsworn statements, and coerced confessions. In a decision by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court held that the commissions violated the American common law of war, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the “rules and precepts of the law of nations,” and the Geneva Conventions. By so deviating from past practices, and by not trusting our system of laws and justice, President Bush greatly damaged our credibility and standing in the world.

The federal court system is simply better equipped, in most cases, to handle these trials. It has been the venue for international terrorism cases since President Reagan authorized them in the 1980’s, and for other terrorist cases long before that. Federal prosecutors have at their disposal a wide array of criminal statutes, all with very clear sentencing guidelines, which can reach not just the terrorists themselves, but anyone who provides material support for, or who aids and abets, the terrorists. According to a study by NYU Law School, since 2001 U.S. criminal courts have convicted over 150 suspects on terrorism charges, while Bush’s military commissions have convicted just three, two of whom were since released and returned to their native countries while Bush was still president. Ali Hamza al-Bahlul, a former al-Qaeda propaganda chief, received a life sentence after he boycotted his military commission trial. The other two, Salim Hamdan, Osama bin-Laden’s former driver and confidante, and David Hicks, an Australian who joined al-Qaeda, served sentences of six months and nine months, respectively (over the time already served in custody), before being returned to their native countries. (For a terrific article on these matters, see Jane Mayer’s recent piece in The New Yorker.)

Two cases in particular show the distinctions between the federal criminal system of justice and that of military commissions – John Walker Lindh and Yaser Hamdi. Lindh, known as the American Taliban, and Hamdi, a Saudi-American, were both captured in Afghanistan in 2001. Lindh was charged criminally and pleaded guilty in federal court. He is now serving twenty years in prison. Hamdi was declared an enemy combatant and was held in military detention without charge. After a court challenge, in 2004 he was released, and he is now living in Saudi Arabia.

Holder has been the subject of right-wing attacks ever since he authorized a special counsel to review cases of torture committed by CIA operatives to determine if any U.S. laws were violated. Yet it was Ronald Reagan who signed the Convention Against Torture in 1988, which not only declared that there exists "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever" justifying torture, but also required all signatory countries to "ensure that all acts of torture are offenses under its criminal law." Reagan wanted each signatory country "either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution." As Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com explains, the policies of Ronald Reagan no longer pass muster with today's conservative critics:

The express policies of the right-wing Ronald Reagan -- "applying the rule of law to terrorists"; delegitimizing Terrorists by treating them as "criminals"; and compelling the criminal prosecution of those who authorize torture -- are now considered on the Leftist fringe. Merely advocating what Reagan explicitly adopted as his policy -- "to use democracy’s most potent tool, the rule of law against" Terrorists -- is now the exclusive province of civil liberties extremists. In those rare cases when Obama does what Reagan's policy demanded in all instances and what even Bush did at times -- namely, trials and due process for accused Terrorists -- he is attacked as being "Soft on Terror" by Democrats and Republicans alike. And the mere notion that we should prosecute torturers (as Reagan bound the U.S. to do) -- or even hold them accountable in ways short of criminal proceedings -- is now the hallmark of a Far Leftist Purist. That's how far we've fallen, how extremist our political consensus has become.

Holder is hardly an ACLU activist. To the disappointment of many civil libertarians, Holder has not ruled out the use of military commissions (which have been reformed with added procedural and evidentiary protections). Indeed, the same day Holder announced that Mohammed and four others were to be tried in federal court for the 9/11 attacks, he also announced that five detainees would be tried before a military commission for the U.S.S. Cole bombings off the coast of Yemen in 2000. Holder deemed it important that “we be able to use every forum possible to hold terrorists accountable for their actions.” He explained that whether to proceed in federal court or before a military commission in a particular case is to be determined based on protocols established by the Departments of Justice and Defense, which look at “the nature of the offense, the location in which the offense occurred, the identity of the victims, and the manner in which the case was investigated.”

Holder has appropriately balanced the Constitution, the rule of law, and our nation’s security. He recognizes that not every case fits within the four corners of the traditional federal criminal case, but he properly insists that we proceed in every case with a fair, just, and effective mechanism for charging and trying all who wind up in U.S. custody. As Ali Soufan, a former FBI special agent who specialized in terrorism cases, said recently in the New York Times:

Military commissions do serve an important purpose. We are at war, and for Qaeda terrorists caught on the battlefield who did not commit crimes inside the United States, or who killed American civilians abroad, military commissions are appropriate. But for terrorists like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who plotted to murder the innocent on United States soil, federal courts are not only more suitable, they’re our best chance at getting the strongest conviction possible.

Critics suggest that trying suspected terrorists in federal court will provide an “intelligence bonanza” to al-Qaeda, because criminal trials require that the government disclose its evidence to the defense and present it in open court. This concern is unfounded. The Classified Information Procedures Act, passed by Congress in 1980, allows the government, with the court’s consent, to withhold classified information, produce summaries or redacted versions, and disclose such information only to defense lawyers with high-level security clearances. Prosecutors routinely invoke this law during terrorism and espionage trials.

Critics also contend that, particularly in Mohammed’s case, a trial will allow terrorism defendants the ability to stand on a soapbox and spread jihadist propaganda. This concern is misplaced. First, federal courts do not permit photography, live broadcasts, or video recordings, so the circus-like atmosphere of an O.J. Simpson trial simply does not occur in federal court. Second, like military judges, federal judges have the authority to gag or remove defendants who attempt to disrupt the trial. Third, and most importantly, a public trial allows the world to see American justice at its best, to the great detriment of the terrorists. As Steven Simon of the Council of Foreign Relations put it in a November 2009 op-ed in the New York Times:

…Instead of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed making his case, we will see the full measure of the horror of 9/11 outlined to the world in a way that only methodical trials can accomplish. Historically, the public exposure of state-sponsored mass murder or terrorism through a transparent judicial process has strengthened the forces of good and undercut the extremists. The Nuremberg trials were a classic case. And nothing more effectively alerted the world to the danger of genocide than Israel’s prosecution in 1961 of Adolf Eichmann, the bureaucrat who engineered the Holocaust.

By contrast, indefinite incarceration without trial, or a military proceeding closed to the public followed by an execution, will only inspire militant jihadists. Transparency, fairness, due process, and the ideals of our Constitution are what strengthens America’s reputation and weakens the influence of radical Muslim clerics and others in the jihadist base.

The purpose of a criminal trial is not to suppress a political message, but to put forth a better message – that we believe in our judicial system, our Constitution, and the force of our laws. A federal trial for Mohammed and other suspected terrorists speaks volumes to what we stand for as Americans: justice, fairness, due process, and commitment to the rule of law. A system that permits secret trials, or no trials, or abridged trials that permit unreliable evidence and that has none of the basic procedural protections of American jurisprudence, is not a system worth defending.

It is notable that other countries victimized by major terrorist attacks over the last several years, including Britain, Spain, India, and Indonesia, have successfully tried and convicted the perpetrators of those terrorist acts in their civilian court systems, in the very cities in which the terror attacks occurred. These countries saw no need to invent special military commissions to short-circuit due process or to hold accused terrorists without trial. They acted in the spirit of the Reagan administration’s policies, to “use democracy’s most potent tool, the rule of law against them.” Why should the United States act differently?

It is disheartening to see so many people willing to throw away the Constitution’s basic rights. If Mohammed and his cohorts are guilty, as were Moussaoui and Reid and the 150 other terrorists we have convicted in federal court, then let us demonstrate it in a trial the world can judge as fair and just. Detaining people without charging them, without allowing them reasonably to defend themselves, and without giving them a fair trial – no matter the nature of the alleged crimes – is not the American way, is not justice, and is not a legal system worthy of this great nation.

Time To Repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell

There are moments in history when a nation must strive to make the ideals upon which it was founded a reality, when the principles of equality and justice must overcome the forces of tradition and fear. On February 2, 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called on Congress to repeal the 1993 law that prohibits gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. Known colloquially as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the law has resulted in over 13,000 military discharges over the past sixteen years. At a time when the military is stretched to its limits, as we fight two wars halfway around the world and contend with threats to our security from multiple fronts, we have lost thousands of troops to a policy that no longer makes sense.

“I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens,” Admiral Mullen testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. “For me personally, it comes down to integrity – theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”

Discharged not for misconduct, but for a sexual orientation that is biologically and psychologically ingrained, we have lost to prejudice and ignorance some of our finest and most decorated soldiers; those who have served their country admirably and with honor, simply because they are gay. The damage to our national security and military readiness from this unjust policy is substantial. Among those discharged since 2003 are over 300 Arabic and Farsi translators, without whom success in Iraq and Afghanistan is not possible. Although gay service members, like all of our troops, face the threat of death every day, merely because of their sexual orientation they must forever look over their shoulders and live with the fear of being “found out.”

It is a policy based on prejudice, not performance. By singling out a group of Americans for second-class treatment, by forcing them to hide who they truly are and to live in fear of accusation and discharge, the law harms the nation; it makes the military weaker by depriving it of a large number of loyal and talented Americans.

The present policy places our military out of step with many of our allies, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Israel, and Australia, each of which allows gays to serve openly with no impact on military readiness, performance, cohesion, or the ability to recruit and retain troops. It is also out of step with public opinion. As noted in The Economist, a recent Gallup poll found that 69% of Americans believe that gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military. And a 2006 Zogby poll of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan found that over 70% of service members are personally comfortable around gays and lesbians, and only 37% believe that gays should not be permitted to serve openly. It is undisputed that gays and lesbians have been serving side-by-side with distinction for decades in our military forces.

Air Force Colonel Om Prakash, who won the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay competition with a thoughtful and scholarly article published in the Joint Force Quarterly, contends that the law has been a “costly failure” whose stated premise – “to protect unit cohesion and combat effectiveness – is not supported by any scientific studies.” Because the law does not explicitly prohibit gays and lesbians from serving in the military – as long as they keep it a secret – it “has led to an uncomfortable value disconnect” as service members must “compromise personal integrity.” The psychological toll alone is too great for many to withstand, as an estimated 4,000 soldiers leave the military every year due to discomfort with an unjust policy. It also places commanders in the difficult position of being expected to know everything about their troops except for one important fact. As explained by Colonel Prakash, the 1993 law:

…was a political compromise reached after much emotional debate based on religion, morality, ethics, psychological rationale, and military necessity. What resulted was a law that has been costly both in personnel and treasure. In an attempt to allow homosexual Servicemembers to serve quietly, a law was created that forces a compromise in integrity, conflicts with the American creed of “equality for all,” places commanders in difficult moral dilemmas, and is ultimately more damaging to the unit cohesion its stated purpose is to preserve.

As a result of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Army and Marine Corps have lowered their moral and aptitude standards to make up for recruiting shortages, granting “moral waivers” to thousands of new recruits, including those with felony convictions. Thus, rather than a highly qualified gay recruit with an exemplary record, the policy favors recruiting convicted felons. Even Barry Goldwater, the hero of the conservative movement forty years ago, recognized the absurdity of the present policy. “You don’t have to be straight in the military,” he once said, “You just have to be able to shoot straight.” If only his fellow Arizonan, Senator John McCain, had the same set of scruples.

In 2006, McCain told a group of college students that he would drop his objections to having gays serve openly in the military “the day the leadership of the military comes to me and says, ‘Senator, we ought to change the policy.’” That day came last Tuesday, when Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates stated as clearly as possible, in McCain’s presence, that it is time to end an unjust, unworkable, and ineffective law. Senator McCain, however, appears to no longer value the opinions of the Generals, as he remains an outspoken opponent of repeal.

Even General Colin Powell, who strongly opposed President Bill Clinton’s attempt to end the discriminatory policy by executive order in 1993, now agrees that the policy needs to be re-evaluated. So does General John Shalikashvili, another former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who recently declared, “as a nation built on the principle of equality, we should recognize and welcome change that will build a stronger, more cohesive military.”

In 1948, President Harry Truman ordered the desegregation of the armed forces, recognizing that a policy that is based on prejudice and fear, that devalues the humanity of an entire class of military personnel and treats them as second-class citizens, is simply wrong. In 2010, these same principles apply to gay and lesbian service members who desire to serve our country with honor and integrity. A military committed to equal rights for all who desire and are capable of serving is a moral imperative.

President Obama is right for seeking the unequivocal repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I find it heartening that Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen have spoken so eloquently and clearly in favor of the law’s reversal. This outdated law, based as it is on irrational fear and prejudice, sends the wrong signal to young people – straight and gay – who desire to serve our country and who are willing to risk their lives to protect our freedoms. If the United States values liberty, equality, diversity, and fairness, the U.S. military must be a place where soldiers can serve with integrity and honesty. The time for repeal has come.

Rebutting Podhoretz: In Defense of Jewish Democrats

Norman Podhoretz, a leading voice of neo-conservative thought in America and formerly the editor of Commentary magazine, recently spoke at a lecture I attended at Congregation Beth Or, a Reform synagogue in Maple Glen, Pennsylvania. A prolific author, Podhoretz was promoting his latest book, Why Are Jews Liberals?, in which he questions why 78% of American Jews voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, a voting pattern consistent with the political leanings of American Jews since 1928. Podhoretz acknowledges that prior to 1945 it made historical sense for American Jews to associate with the Democratic Party. He claims, however, that since Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War in 1967, the left has grown increasingly hostile to Jewish interests, while the right is far more hospitable to Jews in general and Israel in particular.

As Podhoretz explains in the first half of his new book, the answer to why Jews have tended to vote Democratic lies in history. Centuries of atrocities against Jews, committed mostly by the political forces on the right, caused European Jews naturally to align themselves with the left. During the Enlightenment and similarly tolerant moments in history, the European left favored Jewish emancipation, while the European right proved less hospitable. For centuries, Jews were persecuted in medieval Christendom, accused of blood libels, expelled from entire nations, forced to convert, and subjected to ghettoization. More recently -- the Dreyfus affair at the end of the 19th century, and the rise of Nazism in the 20th century -- the political forces on the right were openly hostile and antagonistic to Jewish people and Jewish concerns. Indeed, six million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust, their very existence as a people threatened with total annihilation. In fleeing the persecutions of czarist Russia and Nazi-occupied Europe, Jews emigrated in large numbers to the United States, where they found a home in the Democratic Party.

Prior to the second world war, most American Jews were poor and faced discrimination in housing, the professions, universities, and many other aspects of American life, with the most virulent forms of anti-Semitism originating from political conservatives. Most Jews, including many recent immigrants, naturally affiliated with the Democratic Party led by Franklin Roosevelt, who employed many high-level Jewish aides and advisers, and whose vision of a New Deal resembled the progressive ideals of the European left. Roosevelt’s leadership during the war, combined with the isolationist sentiments of conservatives, many of whom opposed fighting Hitler, and President Truman’s recognition of the State of Israel in 1948, kept Jews faithful to Democratic politics.

It was the Six-Day War in 1967 that, to Podhoretz, was a turning point for American Jewry. When Israel’s existence was threatened by surrounding Arab armies who vowed to wipe Israel off the map, a major community of Jews faced the threat of annihilation for the second time in 25 years, while most of the world sat idly by. This time, however, the Jews were not the victims. Israel’s quick and impressive military victory forced Arab armies into retreat and led to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. No longer was Israel perceived as a weak victim, as David fighting Goliath; Israel instead became the new military power in the Middle East and transformed into Goliath almost overnight. The political left, which more readily identifies with victims, underdogs, and the downtrodden, now viewed the Palestinians as victims of a powerful and oppressive occupier. Podhoretz credibly suggests that a new, more subtle form of anti-Semitism emerged in the form of anti-Zionism.

At the same time, while the left became more critical of Israel, support for the Jewish state grew on the right. The right also became less tolerant of traditional anti-Semitism, which was no longer acceptable in polite society. The National Review, for example, which had previously contributed to the genteel anti-Semitism prevalent in mid-20th century U.S. culture, underwent a transformation led by William Buckley, Jr., who excoriated conservative writers with anti-Semitic views and published articles sympathetic to Jewish concerns. Christian attitudes towards Israel also changed course, as liberal Christians, who previously viewed Israel with protective eyes, became increasingly critical of Israel’s military might, identifying far more frequently with the Palestinian victims of oppression and occupation, while ignoring the actions of Palestinian terrorists. By contrast, the Christian right, which previously had little interest in Israel as a nation state, is today among its staunchest defenders. Similar reversals have occurred among Republicans and Democrats. In his lecture at Beth Or, Podhoretz cited a recent poll in which 69% of Republicans, compared to just 42% of Democrats, expressed greater sympathy for Israel than for Palestinians.

Podhoretz also points to the political battles and threats to Jewish interests posed by quotas and affirmative action, which liberals supported (wrongly, in Podhoretz's view) and which conservatives opposed. But Podhoretz’s perspective on why Jews should be in the conservative camp of American politics is perhaps best summarized in his recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal:

The great issue between the two political communities is how they feel about the nature of American society. With all exceptions duly noted, I think it fair to say that what liberals mainly see when they look at this country is injustice and oppression of every kind – economic, social and political. By sharp contrast, conservatives see freedom and, even factoring in periodic economic downturns, more prosperity to more of its citizens than in any society in human history. . . [T]he social, political and moral systems that liberals wish to transform is the very system in and through which Jews found a home such as they had never discovered in all their forced wanderings throughout the centuries over the face of the earth. It follows that what liberals believe needs to be changed or discarded – and apologized for to other nations – is precisely what conservatives are dedicated to preserving, reinvigorating and proudly defending against attack.

Here, then, lies one of the many flaws in Podhoretz’s analysis. He essentially argues that, because conservatives love America more than do liberals, and since America has done more for Jews than any other country, Jews should be conservative. At Beth Or, Podhoretz added that Obama, as a “false messiah” out to radically transform American society, is a threat to the very society that has so benefited Jews (he, of course, offered no factual support for this ridiculously untrue assertion). Setting aside the offensive notion that liberals do not love America, for a man of such intellectual credentials as Podhoretz, his logic and analysis are disappointing.

Podhoretz arrogantly and simplistically dismisses the possibility that Jewish values have influenced the liberal leanings of American Jews. If that were true, he declares, the Orthodox Jewish community would be among the most liberal. Instead, Orthodox Jews, who know Jewish law and tradition better than anyone, are the most conservative of America’s Jews. He notes, for example, that Jewish law as expressed in the Torah forbids abortion except to save the life of the mother, and that it condemns homosexuality. Here, he sounds much like my fundamentalist Christian friends, selectively quoting from scripture and ignoring all else. Podhoretz contends that for many liberal and secular Jews, most of whom are pro-choice and support gay rights, political liberalism has become their religion, not Judaism.

I do agree with Podhoretz in one respect: there is a distinct segment on the left, in the United States and particularly in Europe, who now regards Israel coldly. This is a shame and something I have attempted to counter whenever the topic presents itself. The left indeed is far too quick to criticize Israel while ignoring the constant threats to Israel’s survival, and ignoring or justifying the daily missile attacks, acts of terrorism, and the corruption of Palestinian governance. But I think Podhoretz, in the interest of making his point, overstates his point, and ignores many inconvenient truths.

First, Podhoretz assumes that uncritical support for Israel is required to demonstrate support for Israel. Republicans are better for the Jews solely because, in his mind, Republicans are more uncritically supportive of Israel. It is true that enthusiasm for Israel among conservatives is sincere, and that sympathy for the Palestinians is mostly on the left. “The problem,” according to Leon Wieseltier, literary editor for the New Republic who critiqued Why Are Jews Liberals? in the New York Times, “is that he cannot suppose that sympathy for the Palestinians may coexist with sympathy, and even love, for Israel.” There are many pro-Israel supporters, Jewish and non-Jewish, who believe that the survival of Israel depends on the establishment of a Palestinian state; and that the absorption of millions of Palestinians into Israel, by annexation or occupation, will destroy the Jewish character or the democratic character, or both, of Israel. Podhoretz simply assumes that any sympathy expressed for the Palestinians is doctrinally incorrect and that any American President that does not automatically comply with the demands of the Israeli government is insufficiently supportive. He mistakenly assumes that all Jews think monolithically about Israel, and that Jewish interests equate with unabashed, uncritical support for the actions of the Israeli government – something that even Israelis do not agree with. And he is wrong to suggest that the Democratic Party is no longer pro-Israel – it is and always has been pro-Israel and, historically, has been a far more reliable supporter of Israel than has the Republican Party.

Second, Podhoretz overlooks the progressive strains of Zionism in his historical account of the emergence of Jewish liberalism. For the same reasons Jews fled Europe for America, they came to Israel, where at the beginning of the 20th century they proceeded to create a Jewish society in the Middle East that reflected and put into practice their progressive ideals. They formed kibbutzim, emphasized the value of community, and formed models of national health care and other forms of social democratic governance. The Israeli National Health System, for example, is one of the most advanced health care systems in the world, which rivals the United States on everything from quality to cost to coverage. It is extremely popular, well managed, and provides compulsory coverage for all Israeli citizens. Maybe Podhoretz believes that conservative principles need benefit only American Jews.

Third, Podhoretz fails to explain how Jewish values and interests are served by the Republican positions on the many other issues of governance and politics. He fails to explain why Jews should support Republican policies concerning the allocation of government resources, health care reform, abortion rights, gay rights, civil rights, environmental protections, gun control, school prayer, military expenditures, and U.S. foreign policy in areas like Latin America, Africa, and Asia. He contends that affirmative action has hurt Jews disproportionately, despite very little evidence of this, and fails to acknowledge that affirmative action is a complex issue for which many reasonable people disagree. “It is . . . a matter about which liberals differ not only with conservatives, but also among themselves,” as Wieseltier explained.

Fourth, Podhoretz argues that American Jews, as the most economically successful ethnic group in American life, should be more accepting of Republican economic policies, which favor the affluent. Yet he ignores that Jewish religious traditions and the Torah support such concepts as “welcoming the stranger,” providing for the poor, treating workers fairly, and other liberal tenets of American politics. It perplexes Podhoretz that anyone would vote against their economic self-interest, citing Milton Himmelfarb's once humorous observation, “Jews earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans.” Wieseltier eloquently counters this conception:

It is not a delusion, not a treason, to vote against your own economic interest. It is a recognition of the multiplicity of interests, the many purposes, that make up a citizen’s life. When, in the Torah of Judaism, Moses commands the Jews to perform acts of social welfare, he sometimes adds the admonition that they were themselves strangers and slaves. . . . The fact that we are no longer strangers and slaves is not all we need to know. We may not regard the world solely from the standpoint of our own prosperity, our own safety, our own contentment. . . . The question of whether liberalism or conservatism does more for the helpless and the downtrodden, for the ones who are not like us, will be endlessly debated, and it is not a Jewish debate; but if the answer is liberalism, then the political history of American Jewry is neither a mystery nor a scandal.

Indeed, what seems so difficult for Podhoretz to fathom is that many American Jews vote liberal, or at least vote Democratic, for the reasons many Americans vote Democratic – because they believe it is better for America.

Even Jewish Republicans over the years (Jacob Javits, Rudy Boschwitz, Arlen Specter) have traditionally been moderate to liberal on social issues, supporting abortion rights, environmental protections, the separation of church and state, issues that have become less welcome in the Republican Party since the Reagan Revolution in the 1980’s. The dominance of the religious right in the Republican Party scares a lot of American Jews. Many of the same Christian conservatives who so adamantly support Israel also support prayer in schools, believe in proselytizing among Jews (even in Israel), reject the theory of evolution and deny the impact of human activity of climate change despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary (a topic for another day). Is it really any surprise that, as a minority religious group, most Jews are opposed to letting conservative Christian dogma dictate the laws over a woman’s reproductive rights, or prayer in schools, or the civil rights of gays and lesbians?

Finally, while it may be true that Christian conservatives support Israel, for many it is tied to the belief that it will hasten the Rapture. I believe that Podhoretz is asking the wrong question. It is not, “Why are Jews liberal?” Rather, it should be, “Where else are Jews to go?” Many centrist and moderately conservative Jews continue to vote for Democrats simply because the right wing of the Republican Party makes them uncomfortable. Perhaps, rather than trying to convince Jews to vote for Republicans, Podhoretz should attempt to make the GOP less beholden to social and religious conservatives, less hostile to minority rights, more open to scientific knowledge and research, and more reflective of Jewish values of justice as reflected in the Torah.

Reflections on My Grandfather: Memories and Lost Opportunities

We stood at the door of my grandfather’s house, a country rancher on a horse farm in north central Ohio. My parents had been driving all day, three children and a dog in tow, so that we could make our annual summer visit to my mother’s father and her stepmom. It was dark outside and no porch light was on, when we rang the door bell. We stood there waiting, and waited some more, until it seemed like five or six minutes went by. Are they home? They are expecting us, aren’t they? Finally, my grandfather came to the door. “Oh, hi Janie,” he said to my mom impassively, “How are you?”

As a young boy, not more than eight years old, this was confusing. I was excited to arrive at my grandfather’s house. I knew that my brother and I would have a great time there, running up and down the long dirt-drive that connected the two horse barns; petting the horses while sneaking them sugar cubes and carrots; and hitting fly balls to each other in the open expanse of grass behind Grandpa’s granite back porch and goldfish pond. But Grandpa never seemed very glad to see us. Maybe he loved all of us and simply had a hard time showing it. He was not a man who expressed emotions freely; a lawyer and shrewd businessman, he had made good money in construction and real estate over the years, had two oil wells on his property, and at one time owned more than 30 thoroughbred race horses. Despite his wealth and good fortune, he did not share much of it with his family. When my father asked him for a small loan shortly after marrying my mom in the early 1950’s so that he could purchase a car, my grandfather declined, stating that his money “was all tied up.” When he died, he left my mom and her two brothers very little, instead passing almost all of his net worth onto his second wife, my Aunt Jean, a woman of independent means who would eventually leave it all to distant relatives (she had no children of her own).

He was not much of a father to my mom nor much of a grandfather to her children. Only once in my lifetime did he ever visit us. When I was six years old, he stopped by our house in southern New Jersey wearing his custom bow tie and fedora, said hello and sat on the living room couch for ten minutes, then continued to Atlantic City, where he was entering one of his horses in a stakes race. I sensed that he never greatly valued my mom as a daughter, though perhaps this was a reflection of his old-fashioned tastes and outdated, traditional views on the inferior roles of women. My mom and he had very little in common; she had long since expanded beyond her days as a boarding student at the prestigious Hathaway Brown School in Shaker Heights, where Grandpa sent her throughout her teen years. She had developed into a liberal Democrat and devout Christian, while he remained very conservative in his politics and had little connection to whatever semblance of faith he may have retained. He was a country club Republican who viewed the world from very narrow lenses, with little sympathy for the less fortunate and little tolerance for people different than himself.

Despite this, now that he has been gone for nearly three decades, I sometimes wish that he had lived longer, so that I could have talked to him as an adult and gotten to know him better. I would have liked to have discussed areas of mutual interest – the law, politics, and even horse racing. He and Jennifer, my oldest daughter, might have bonded over horses – maybe he could have helped make real her dream of one day training race horses. I could have learned a lot from my grandfather, despite his significant shortcomings. As with so much of life, we can only wonder.

In reality, I know very little about my grandfather’s life. Although he graduated with a law degree in the early 1920’s and used his legal training to assist him in his business endeavors, he died during my first year in law school. I never had a chance to talk with him in depth about the law as a profession. Had he lived longer, maybe he would have been proud to have a grandson who became a federal prosecutor. I would have liked to have talked to him about my courtroom experiences, about the art of cross examination and arguing to judges and juries. I have always been a little envious of my colleagues who had family members in the law, who could turn to fathers and grandfathers, brothers and sisters, as professional mentors and guides.

Grandpa and I would not have agreed on much politically, but I would have enjoyed debating him. And had he lived longer, when I developed an interest in horse racing – a sport to which I am attracted for its speed, beauty and rich history – I would have loved accompanying him to the track, gaining insight into the business side of racing, and listening to his stories of hope and heartbreak, disappointment and exuberance. My favorite room in his house was always his study. I recall spending hours there examining his collection of trophies and pictures from the winner’s circle that lined the dark wood paneling and built-in book shelves. It was a room of someone important, of an accomplished man who had succeeded in life, or so I thought as a ten year-old child that knew little of life’s realities.

Whatever deficiencies he may have had as a man, Grandpa was the only grandfather I ever knew. My dad’s father died long before I was born. I know now, as I enter into my sixth decade of life, that those fortunate enough to have had a loving grandfather or two are very lucky, for grandfathers have a lot of wisdom and life experience to offer. Having lived through history, they have the benefit of hindsight from which to talk of the present. Grandfathers can teach you what they have learned in life, including mistakes made along the way. A grandfather’s perspective, formed from years of experience, can guide, inform, teach, and influence.

My grandfather was born in 1901 and, by the time he died in 1983, he had lived through the inventions of the automobile, the assembly line, airplane travel, television and the computer; he saw the growth of the interstate highway system and the development of space travel; and he experienced two world wars, a great depression, and the social and sexual revolutions of the sixties and seventies. Just when I was old enough and ready to learn from him, he was no longer around to talk to me. Would he have been there for me had he lived longer?

I don’t recall any truly meaningful conversation that I ever had with my grandfather. I am sure he is not fully to blame, as I was too young or too limited in my own interests – too focused on baseball, or girls, or basketball, or school, or football – to understand the importance of grandfathers. My grandmothers, not surprisingly, paid much closer attention to their grandchildren and made clear their love of us. I have few regrets about them. Grandmothers historically and universally perform their tasks much better than grandfathers. My grandfather certainly failed in this respect. But I do not want to judge him too harshly. I’d like to think he tried his best. I just wish he and I had tried a little harder.

The Theology and Continued Relevance of Martin Luther King Jr.

Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions for our time: the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
--Martin Luther King, Jr., Nobel Prize acceptance speech, Stockholm, Sweden, December 11, 1964.

Although his life was cut short by an assassin’s bullet at the age of 39, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., preached a message of universal love and understanding. A fervent believer in Christian pacifism and nonviolent social change, by the time he died in 1968, King had led millions of people in shattering the legal system of racial segregation in the South and in exposing the economic and social inequities of the North. A powerfully passionate and effective advocate for racial justice and civil and human rights, he also was a leading voice of the peace movement that opposed the Vietnam War, and he remains one of the great moral voices of the Twentieth Century. However, what intellectual strains influenced King’s theology, and do they remain relevant today?

As a young seminary student, and throughout his life, King was impacted greatly (though by no means exclusively) by the Social Gospel movement of Walter Rauschenbusch. A ministry for the real world, the Social Gospel movement meant to bridge the gap between saving souls and saving lives, between the spiritual dimensions of religion and the Church’s obligation to seek justice and act as the moral conscience of society. Rauschenbusch, a progressive German-Lutheran turned Baptist minister, was profoundly affected by his ministry in the Hell’s Kitchen section of New York in the late 1880’s, an experience that educated him on the injustices of poverty, educational deficiencies, and inequalities then prevalent in American society. In Christianity and the Social Crisis, one of the few books King would specifically cite as influencing his own theology, Rauschenbusch articulated the Christian duty to act in the spirit of love to improve social conditions.

As the minister of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama, and later at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, King would emulate Rauschenbusch’s contention that the minister’s job is “to apply the teaching functions of the pulpit to the pressing questions of public morality.” Although critics denounced Rauschenbusch as a Utopian idealist, to King and others, the Social Gospel movement saved Christianity from irrelevance by defining social justice as the closest approximation of God’s kingdom on earth.

A religion true to its nature must also be concerned about man’s social conditions. . . . Any religion that professes to be concerned with the souls of men and is not concerned with the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them, and the social conditions that cripple them is a dry-as-dust religion.
--Martin Luther King Jr.

A similar, if later influence on King was his friendship in the 1960’s with Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, who joined with King in the struggle for civil rights in the South and in efforts to oppose American involvement in Vietnam. Writing on the topic of “Religion in a Free Society,” Heschel contended that “when religion speaks only in the name of authority rather than with the voice of compassion, its message becomes meaningless” (The Insecurity of Freedom: Essays on Human Existence, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1967). As Heschel explained:

Religion has often suffered from the tendency to become an end in itself, to seclude the holy, to become parochial, self-indulgent, self-seeking; as if the task were not to ennoble human nature but to enhance the power and beauty of its institutions or to enlarge the body of doctrines. It has often done more to canonize prejudices than to wrestle for truth; to petrify the sacred than to sanctify the secular. Yet the task of religion is to be a challenge to the stabilization of values.

Heschel contended that the prophets of old “dwelt more on the affairs of the royal palace, on the ways and views of the courts of justice, than on the problems of the priestly rituals at the temple of Jerusalem.” The prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures confronted the world as it existed, and were not concerned with the hereafter. For this reason, according to Heschel, “Tranquility is unknown to the soul of a prophet. The miseries of the world give him no rest.” As a modern-day prophet, King understood precisely that to which Heschel referred in challenging the realities of racism, discrimination, hatred, and prejudice. King’s was not a tranquil time and he had little occasion for rest.

In his ministry to the poor and oppressed, King found solace in the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. King spoke of universal, or agape love, based on the Greek word in the New Testament that referenced God’s love for humanity and which King believed was at the essence of Christianity – a selfless form of love that remains constant even if no love is reciprocated. While King professed that “love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend,” he knew that “the best way to assure oneself that love is disinterested is to have love for the enemy-neighbor from whom you can expect no good in return, but only hostility and persecution.” He would use this concept in leading non-violent civil disobedience during the sit-ins and demonstrations in the early 1960’s. King believed that nonviolent resistance, when practiced effectively, disarmed one’s opponent by disturbing his conscience.

Although he preached a message of universal love, King was also a Christian realist in the mold of Reinhold Niebuhr, the great Protestant theologian and author of Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932) and The Nature and Destiny of Man (1941). Niebuhr, who considered the Social Gospel movement naïve in believing that human beings would respond collectively to calls for justice and love, had a major impact on King’s struggles for justice in the Jim Crow south. Large social groups, according to Niebuhr, whether corporations, labor unions, or nations, were by nature selfish. Society responded only to power; piety, charity, education, and reform could never hope to eliminate injustice without involving itself directly in power conflicts. “Even in a just and free society, there must be forms of pressure short of violence, but more potent than the vote, to establish justice in collective relations.” King’s study of Niebuhr led him to a fuller understanding of human motives, group behavior, and the connection between power and morality. In the Montgomery Bus Boycott, King’s methods put pressure on the finances of the white business community, which eventually “coerced” a negotiated settlement that improved the lot of blacks in Montgomery.

King’s reflections on Niebuhr’s theology helped him view more clearly the decade long protest campaign inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, which led to India’s independence from British control. In Stride Toward Freedom (Beacon Press, 1958), King wrote that “Gandhi was probably the first person in history to lift the love ethic of Jesus above mere interaction between individuals to a powerful and effective social force on a large scale. . . . It was in this Gandhian emphasis on love and nonviolence that I discovered the method for social reform that I had been seeking.” King came to view “the Christian doctrine of love, operating through the Gandhian method of nonviolence, [as] one of the most potent weapons available to an oppressed people in their struggle for freedom.”

Like Niebuhr, King viewed the actions of Gandhi through the lens of power conflict and realism. While many religious idealists assumed that Gandhi’s methods were politically effective while avoiding the corruptions of the world, Niebuhr saw in Gandhi’s strikes, boycotts, marches, and demonstrations, a political strategy that was essentially coercive in forcing changes to the societal balance of power. In later years, King would describe Gandhian nonviolence as “merely a Niebuhrian stratagem of power.”

Another important aspect of King’s theology, and one often overlooked, is the concept of imago Dei, the belief that human beings are created in God’s image. For King, God’s creation of humanity was a powerful argument for the equality of all people. King believed that being made in God’s image meant that human beings had the right and the power to reshape society and to build a “beloved community” on earth. Rabbi Heschel reflected similar sentiments: “We are called upon to be an image of God. You see, God is absent, invisible, and the task of a human being is to represent the Divine, to be a reminder of the presence of God.”

Individually and collectively, these doctrines provided King with a theological rationale to address the needs of the community far outside the walls of his church, and were central to the dynamics of the modern civil rights movement. Although grounded in the concept of Christian love, King knew that love alone could not effect positive change. “Morals cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. The law cannot make an employer love me, but it can keep him from refusing to hire me because of the color of my skin.”

We have made substantial progress since King’s death in 1968. King’s legacy is reflected in part by our election of an African American president; by laws that prohibit racial and ethnic discrimination; by social mores that suppress outward expressions of racial hostility and prejudice; and by a growing black middle class, black mayors and congressional representatives, black police chiefs and astronauts, black military leaders and news anchors. Yet racial reconciliation in this country is far from complete. As King said, “Like life, racial understanding is not something that we find but something that we must create. And so the ability of [blacks] and whites to work together, to understand each other, will not be found ready-made; it must be created by the fact of contact.”

The struggles for justice, peace, and equal rights for all will remain with us for generations to come. The focus must necessarily shift at times to other parts of the world – the quest for peace in the Middle East; the cessation of hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan; the end of civil strife in Africa; the search for economic and political justice in Latin America and Asia. Had there ever been a Palestinian leader, for example, who applied the concept of Gandhian nonviolence to the Palestinians’ struggles with Israel, a two-state solution would have happened a long time ago. Yet rather than nonviolent resistance to West Bank settlements and the allocation of water resources, the Palestinians have mostly adopted the methods of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Yasir Arafat, shelling Israeli towns, organizing suicide bombings, and committing violence against innocent people. If they had asked King in 1968, he would have told them that such methods would render them just as powerless 40 years later.

For churches, synagogues, and mosques to remain relevant, they too must follow King’s lead and speak with a moral voice to the power dynamics of the world today, to government and industry, unions and military units, international governing bodies and news outlets. Only by applying the concept of universal love and understanding, combined with non-violent pressure, can justice truly be achieved among societies, nations, and institutions. “If there is to be peace on earth and goodwill toward men,” King said, “we must finally believe in the ultimate morality of the universe, and believe that all reality hinges on moral foundations.” While King’s message, teachings, and life remains ever so relevant today, will we as a people answer his call?

Confessions of a Home Run King in an Unforgiving World

Mark McGwire tried to come clean Monday, and in his heart he believes that he did. But understand that Big Mac was never very good at these things. A private and shy man, he’s never displayed much deftness in cultivating an image. He always wanted to hit the baseball out of sight, then remain out of sight himself.
--Bernie Miklasz, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

After a self-imposed exile and refusing “to talk about the past,” Mark McGwire has finally come clean. In a series of public statements this past Monday, McGwire acknowledged that he had used steroids on and off for a decade, starting before the 1990 season. He did not attempt to minimize his use of the drugs or suggest he took them by mistake, but explained that his use became more frequent in the mid-1990’s, when he was repeatedly on the disabled list, missing 228 games over five seasons. McGwire insisted that he did it not to gain a strength advantage, but for health reasons, to keep him on the baseball diamond and out of the trainer’s room. His career had been in jeopardy due to a ribcage strain and several heel injuries from 1993 to 1995, and he was led to believe that “steroids could help me recover faster” and might “help me heal and prevent injuries.” As it happens, McGwire’s best seasons were from 1996 to 1999, when he hit 52, 58, 70, and 65 home runs, respectively. His knees started to break down – he acknowledges now that it may have been because of steroids – in the 2000 season, when he played in only 89 games, and in 2001, when he hit a mere .187 with 29 home runs in 299 at bats (he retired after that season).

“I wish I had never touched steroids. It was foolish and it was a mistake. I truly apologize.” He said that using steroids is now his biggest regret, “a stupid act” for which he tainted his career and disappointed many people, including his family and biggest supporters. On the morning of his interview with Bob Costas on the MLB Network, McGwire called and apologized to Pat Maris, the widow of Roger Maris. It was a difficult call to make, but one that he believed was important. “She was disappointed,” said McGwire, but supportive. When Costas noted that some of Maris’s children believe their father’s record has never been authentically broken, McGwire replied, “I fully understand.” He cried several times during the interview, and to me, his tears seemed real and sincere. He was a man in pain, knowing that he had let down so many people, yet he seemed relieved to be finally letting it all out. It was a compelling interview, very moving, and one that needed to happen.

Yet I was disheartened to see that, rather than praise McGwire for finally admitting his transgressions and apologizing for his wrongs, he was immediately ridiculed and ripped apart. Ken Rosenthal of FoxSports.com chastised McGwire for “still living a lie . . . [H]e did not admit – did not want to admit, or perhaps could not bring himself to admit – that steroids helped make him a better hitter.” Jay Mariotti of FanHouse said McGwire “hid it for much too long, coming clean only after he ended his personal exile” to become the hitting coach for the Cardinals. "He had no choice . . . but to confess and tell some details – though hardly the entire story – about his relationship with ‘roids’.” Many others expressed similar views. Although McGwire wants us to forgive and move on, a seemingly reasonable proposition, and while reporters and pundits have been insisting for the past five years that he needs to admit his wrongs, there are some people who will never be satisfied, who want their pound of flesh no matter what he says or does.

It should not be surprising, given how cynical and mean spirited the entire world has become in all other spheres of life. Although Rosenthal acknowledged that McGwire “seemed truly anguished, deeply troubled by what he had done,” it was simply not good enough for McGwire to admit that much of his career is tainted, or for him to confess his sins and break down in tears on national television. It makes one wonder whether the next player who wants to unburden his conscious will now have second thoughts. Why not instead take the Roger Clemens approach and essentially say, Screw you, everyone, I admit nothing.

One of the most astute observers of the whole McGwire affair is Bernie Miklasz of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Miklasz took to task many of the baseball pundits and other critics who have ridiculed McGwire and relentlessly dissected his admissions. “[N]o matter what McGwire said, or how he said it, the guy was going to be picked apart.” For years, sportswriters and broadcasters have been demanding that McGwire break his silence and come clean on his use of steroids. Americans are a forgiving people, so it was generally assumed that, “so long as McGwire came clean, he’d score a lot of points and earn respect.” Yet that is not what happened.

McGwire was more honest and open and candid than any of the sluggers tainted by the steroid era. In terms of his forthrightness, McGwire easily surpassed the forced confessions of Alex Rodriguez and Andy Pettite, or assorted clowns who failed steroids tests and attributed it to taking the wrong medication by mistake. I didn’t agree with some of McGwire’s answers, but he was much more of a man than any of these other guys. But in the end, it didn’t matter much. This is what we do in the media, and it’s a two-step process: (1) moralize and demand a confession; (2) moralize and condemn after the confession is offered. . . . Let’s face it: these guys can’t win. Because even when they choose to ‘fess up, we change the parameters on them after the fact.

I will be the first to admit that, when McGwire was belting 480 foot home runs for the St. Louis Cardinals in the late 1990’s, I was among his biggest fans. I personally saw McGwire hit 10 home runs over the course of four seasons, each one a monstrous blast, louder, higher, and farther than other players’ home runs. It was a thing of beauty. Whenever the Cardinals came to Philadelphia, I would get to the ballpark early so as not to miss batting practice. I must have seen McGwire hit at least 100 batting practice home runs; everyone stopped what they were doing to watch him swing the bat. Twice I saw McGwire hit three home runs in a single game at Veterans Stadium in Philadelphia, each one sailing high and deep into the upper deck of that vast, spacious ballpark, bouncing off the empty seats in no man’s land, one ricocheting off of the center-field scoreboard.

Fans and players alike were in awe of McGwire. Although I heard the whispers of suspicion, I believed it possible that he was a naturally big, strong athlete, who had simply worked hard to develop his Paul Bunyan physique. After all, no one disputed that McGwire was a gifted athlete, possessed with natural talent to hit a baseball. He hit a home run his first time up in Little League and, as he told Costas, people still talk about the home runs he hit in High School ball, in American Legion ball, and in the Minor Leagues. And McGwire hit 49 home runs as a skinny rookie in 1987, long before any steroids ever touched him. So I wanted to believe McGwire’s denials. I wanted to believe that he was a really good guy, honest and forthright, as well as a great hitter. I joined the Feel Good Party, made up of fans, sportswriters, managers, and front office personnel, all of whom turned a blind eye towards what in retrospect seemed obvious. The McGwire-Sosa home run battle of 1998 was fun and exciting and represented, so we thought, everything that was good and decent about the game, a positive diversion from the daily news cycle that talked non-stop of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, impeachment hearings, embassy bombings, and UN weapons inspections.

Of course, McGwire was hardly alone in his sins. It is generally assumed that a large number of players, possibly a majority, also used steroids from the late 1980’s through the 1990’s and beyond, that it was part of the game. The home run totals in the major leagues were off the charts during the Nineties, something that is difficult to attribute to better training methods and coincidence. Players are certainly better conditioned today than they used to be, more conscious of weight training, stronger and bigger (legitimately), but for certain players, like McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, and many others, the difference in body mass from their early playing days to their later playing days (when their skills should be on the decline), was too stark to ignore.

So while I am disappointed that one of my baseball heroes is less than perfect, and that his achievements and records are now to be forever questioned, I am happy that he has finally told the truth about his past, that he can get back into the game that he so loves and to which he has much to contribute. And I wish that people would be a little more forgiving, a little more compassionate. There are far worse things in life that people can do. McGwire has been punished and chastised enough. He will never be admitted into the Hall of Fame, despite his 583 career home runs. He will forever be associated with the Steroid Era. But he is a decent man who was an excellent teammate, is a generous contributor to worthy causes (he started a foundation to benefit the victims of child abuse, a subject very close to his heart), and who, by all accounts, is a good father.

I believe McGwire really does believe that steroids did not enhance his performance; it is understandable, for he was the one who actually hit the home runs. It was his hand-eye coordination, his timing, and his swing that connected with each 93 mile-an-hour fastball that sailed into the hinterlands. He cannot now take those home runs back, and in his mind, he hit them based on his skill as a baseball player, on the work he put in year-after-year in shortening his swing and studying the opposing pitchers. So, I understand his mindset, even if I think he may be wrong. For while he no doubt became a better hitter as he got older, shortening his swing and taking smarter at bats, and while he always had great bat speed and immense power (long before he ever started taking PEDs), if the steroids helped him stay healthy and helped his muscles recover more quickly when he was 35, 36, and 37 years old, then they enhanced his performance, allowing him to play at a high level when other players have to hang up their spikes.

McGwire deserves our praise for coming clean, and we should not chastise and ridicule his efforts, even if we disagree with some of his assertions and beliefs. We should understand that, as a proud and vulnerable man, McGwire gave a lot of himself to admit what he did. Does it really matter that he does not perceive all aspects of his transgressions in the same manner as Ken Rosenthal? Importantly, McGwire said that, had Major League Baseball tested for steroids in the 1990's, he would not have used them. But no one seemed to mind back then, indeed everyone embraced the home run displays of McGwire, Bonds, and Sosa. There are a lot of parties complicit in this whole sordid affair. We don't have to like that McGwire took steroids, we can keep him out of the Hall of Fame and place an asterisk by his home run records. But the Costas interview helped me, at least, better understand his motives and appreciate his humanity. It is time to accept his apology and grant him personal (if not professional) forgiveness; time to move forward and restore integrity to the game of baseball.