Dignity, Dialogue and Donald Trump

Human dignity is greatly emphasized in Judaism. The threat that Trump’s election poses to the dignity of women and minorities is very serious. As one Trump supporter put it: “the effect of Trump is that everything becomes permissible” (1). The risk is that Trump will normalise bigotry and hate-speech to the extent that we are less aware and less questioning of hurtful and humiliating behaviour in the future. However, our solidarity with minorities does not require dismissing the indignities of those doing it tough, including rural white voters who voted for Trump in overwhelming numbers. . Furthermore, I suggest we even take a moment to think about Trump’s own indignity. I know, I ask for a lot from many who are outraged about this election, but there is a time for everything, (2) and now more than ever is a time for dialogue and exploration rather than building walls.  

My call for dialogue does not preclude howling in indignation. On the contrary, it might well be a time “to hurl (assertive but civil and strictly verbal) stones”. To speak of Trump without condemnation is, in most cases, to condone his sins. His rhetoric against Mexicans and Muslims recalls the cruelty of the city of Sodom to outsiders in a xenophobic effort to preserve the wealth of its fertile valley (3). Condemnation counters the normalization of deplorable views, but of course calling people deplorable based on their likely voting intentions is unwise, and it is also wrong.

As Jews we need to emulate Abraham, who welcomed all travelers into his homes even if their beliefs (5) and values were diametrically opposed to his own. On social media, I have noticed a ‘trend to unfriend’ those who support trump by those opposed to him. The research shows that engaging people with prejudices can be effective (6) (see the article referred to in this footnote for one touching example of successfully canvassing for Trans rights through non-judgemental conversation and empathy). In such conversations it is important to listen more than we talk.

I tried some respectful engagement myself this morning in a Jewish Whatsapp group that includes some Trump supporters, where someone posted a racist comment. Instead of moralising, I appealed to self interest by pointing out that the racists who despise Muslims, Mexicans and Blacks also hate Jews. My comments on the Whatsapp chat emboldened other members of the group to also speak out against racism within the group chat.

Some have argued, and I think correctly, that one factor that contributed to Trump’s support was an anger by white rural voters toward  sophisticated city people who talked down to them. This perceived disrespect is part of what drove the anger toward elitism that pervaded American society, that was exploited, by Donald Trump to drive passion and energy into his supporters. This anger doesn’t justify degradation of any group, but we should not ignore the manifest anger that exists. This anger is borne of passion and stems from stories and backgrounds that we cannot always comprehend - but we should try to understand it and address any genuine injustices and needs. The distinction between condoning specific expressions of anger and understanding their sources can be applied when thinking about Trumps relationship with the media.

One of the most powerful articles I read about Trump was by a journalist who observed Trump rile up his rural poor audiences against the “elite” journalists. He recounts: “I was huddled in the media pen with the traveling press, awaiting the moment Trump would point at us and incite his 5,000 minions to jeer... (but) it only now dawned on me, in the final week of the campaign, to my great horror, that the real reason they put us in the pen was so they could turn us into props...He never once failed to invite his crowds to heckle us. He was placing us on display like captured animals. Behold, Trump said to his fans, I’ve rounded up a passel of those elites you detest. And I’ve caged them for you! Allow me to belittle them for your delight. Here, now you take a turn—go ahead, have at it! Do it again, don’t be shy!”.

However, an incident in 2011 suggests there might have been reveal a more personal l reason for Trumps enthusiasm for humiliating journalists, one which exemplifies the cycle of hurt and hate that Donald Trump was once a victim to, but is now perpetuating and leading. During that the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner, Trump was repeatedly humiliated by President Obama and another comedian with cutting jokes. “Mr. Trump at first offered a drawn smile, then a game wave of the hand. But as the president’s mocking of him continued and people at other tables craned their necks to gauge his reaction, Mr. Trump hunched forward with a frozen grimace. After the dinner ended, Mr. Trump quickly left, appearing bruised” (7). He had been humiliated by 1000 laughing journalists. His revenge demonstrated that “hurt people, hurt people (8)”. We must break the cycle of hurt and take great care with our words (9). It is a time to heal!

Herein lies one lesson of hope from an otherwise draining election: We must employ a radical empathy and understanding to all those who we encounter, regardless of divergent ideologies. Indeed, Leviticus instructs that “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk.” Thus, despite the hate-filled rhetoric from Donald Trump and his supporters, that has served to embolden hate, and the hostility from city folk toward rural people, now is the time to move past that mood and embrace dialogue over division.

As Martin Luther King said “We’ve got some difficult days ahead..”, however “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice”, for all people regardless of their skin color, gender, sexuality or faith. It our task, with patience, listening, compassion and curiosity as well as assertiveness to make sure that it does.

First published on At the Well. http://www.atthewell.com.au/article/dignity-dialogue-and-donald-trump

Notes:

1. Milo Yiannopoulos, http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/elite-got-it-wrong-trump-s-supporters-want-you-know-n681121
2. Ecclesiastes - Chapter 3
3. Genesis 19, Talmud, Sanhedrin 109
4. http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/11/15/13595508/racism-trump-research-study
5. Rashi to Genesis 18:4
6. Stevenson, S. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/on_the_trail_for_the_final_week_of_the_trump_campaign.html
7. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign.html?_r=0,
8. Will Bowen
9. Jacobson, Y.Y., Rabbi, in a recorded talk shared on whatapp, note the great sensitivity that God showed toward Abraham and Sarah in the Torah reading Vayera, Genesis 18:13 in which He doesn't repeat Sarah's words verbatim about Abraham being old, as she stated in verse 18:12.
10. Martin Luther King Jn. in The Mountaintop speech. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkivebeentothemountaintop.htm

Insecurity, Scapegoating and Re-assigning Shared Responsibility - Acharei Mot

I, like many people, crave the feeling that comes from thinking of myself as being good. This need can be difficult for me to satisfy because I am both flawed as well as virtuous and my habitual self-criticism and insecurities tend to focus more on the former than the latter. Some people, including bigots[i], in their efforts to think of themselves as good, designate someone else as a scapegoat to take the blame for the existence of their shortcomings.  Scape-goating is part of both Donald Trump’s and Bernie Sander’s appeal to at least some Americans.  Either foreigners or bankers are blamed for America's problems.  This tactic is far from new and in fact when we re-examine the origins of this concept, there are dramatically different approaches to the topic of “scapegoating”.

We first read about the scapegoat in Leviticus: “Aaron shall lean both of his hands upon the live male goat's head and confess upon it all the wilful sins of the Israelites, all their rebellions, and all their unintentional sins and he shall place them on the he goat's head, and send it off to the desert...[ii]”

The concept of transferring blame implicit in scapegoating is strongly rejected by one of the greatest Jewish authorities of all time, Maimonides. He wrote that ‘sins are not burdens that one can transfer from the back of one person to that of another, but (rather) all these actions are all meant as lessons to bring about fear in one’s soul, until one repents[iii]’. In this approach, the destroyed goat is an illustration of the evil within each individual themselves, that can only be removed by personal change and improvement. The goat is at least in part an aid to the imagination just as the ceremonial “tossing our sins” into the sea by emptying our pockets at the edge of a body of water does not substitute for the hard work of changing habits and repairing our relationships with our fellow humans or God.   

In contrast to the view of Maimonides, the symbolism found in at least one commentary of this ritual appears to reflect the modern concept of a ‘scapegoat’. This interpretation implies that sins can indeed be transferred from one person to another. It symbolically links the two goats and the twins Jacob and Esau[iv] who are seen as ancestors and therefore symbolic of the Jewish and Roman nations respectively.  Despite the similarity of two ordinary goats as well as the twins Jacobs and Esau Jews, Jacob is seen to be held close to God, while Esau is distanced from God. This choice is articulated by God through one of the prophets in the statement: “Is it not (true) that Esau is a brother to Jacob said God, yet I loved Jacob and I hated Esau[v]”. Mirroring this apparently arbitrary selection of Jacob by God, one goat is selected to be offered in the holy temple. The other goat, is sent to a forsaken area in the desert which mirrors the fact that Esau, the archetypal Roman, himself was a man of the field, distanced from God, “bitter, brazen (עז) in strength and wickedness”.  

If we take this commentary at face value, it implies that the Jews can pass on their sins to Rome! Despite my preference for Maimonides’ approach that affirms personal responsibility, I think that sometimes there is in fact merit in assigning shared responsibility to parties other than the direct perpetrator. For example, if members of oppressed minorities commit crimes like burglary, it makes sense to combine the principle of personal responsibility that holds the robber accountable with assigning some responsibility to those who created the unjust circumstances in which those crimes are committed, such as colonialism or institutional racism. This theme is alluded to (in the commentary about the scapegoat) when Esau/Rome, cries out in protest as the crimes are loaded onto him: “how can I bear all these sins?” The complaint is explained as an argument against shifting blame for sins that are not attributable to oppression such as sins of lust[vi].  The implication is that culpability for some sins can be justly attributed to the oppressive, “brazen” state and only some “responsibility re-assignment” is unjustified.  

For me, I believe the most useful thing to do in relation to my self-concept is firstly to combine acknowledgement of my shortcomings with appreciation for my positive aspects. There is no need, benefit or justification to blame others for one’s own faults. There are times when I can use my imagination in a process of moving on, just like the goat ceremony might help someone work on their self-improvement. For example, I can externalise my habitual self-criticism and imagine it coming from a harsh unreasonable judge or a personalised “inner critic” who needs to be told to back off. Religious Jews often talk about the “evil inclination” as if it was another person. This is ok as long as we don’t forget we are just pretending and that in reality the “inner critic” and evil inclination is part of us. In the broader context of inter-group relations, I think the concept of the scapegoat can be, at times ridiculous bigotry and at other times, a rightful redistribution of a fair share of responsibility between those who take harmful actions and those who, through greed, arrogance, stupidity and injustice contributed to the circumstances that made that harm likely.

---

[i] See the work of Stuart Hall on representation

[ii] Leviticus 16:21

[iii] Guide for the Perplexed 3:46 cited in Nachshoni, Vayikra, p. 768

[iv] Abarbanel Acharei Mot, p. 179

[v]  Malachai, 1:2-3

[vi] Chasam Sofer in Toras Moshe, based on Midrash, cited in Nachshoni, Vayikra, p. 767

Don’t keep it simple or calm! On political and other leadership

The contrast between Donald Trump and our current prime minister could hardly be greater. The “Donald” fearlessly commits to punishing women for having abortions, ‘building a wall that Mexico will pay for’ and barring Muslims entry to the US. I cringed when I read Kristina Keneally’s sarcastic ridiculing of the caution of our Prime Minister in her article; “Let’s cut Turnbull some slack, he’s had a hard week after making a decision[i]”. Another comparison could be made between the complexity of Hilary Clinton’s candidacy and the simplicity of the Sanders economic message. The attraction of the simple is undeniable. Despite my strong feelings about the leaders more generally, this post is focused on the merit of different leadership styles rather than on the personalities. 

 I was told the other day to calm down while talking passionately about my ideas. I thought: ‘No way will I calm down’. Sitting alongside emotion’s potential for destruction and messiness, is its potency as an ingredient of positive change. I love watching Bernie Sanders getting carried away in delight, as when a bird settled on his podium, or in anger when talking about injustice. On the other hand, emotion coupled with arrogance can be truly scary in a leader.

I also choose to embrace, albeit reluctantly, my hesitancy and difficulty making decisions. While it might be considered heroic or “manly” to be decisive, it can also lead to harmful decisions.

In this week’s Torah reading, we find a caution against getting carried away with emotion in the case of Aaron’s sons who spontaneously and joyously[ii] brought an offering that they were not commanded to bring[iii]. Passion is vital, as symbolised by the constant fire in the temple [iv], but it must be combined with humility[v]. Humility is also highlighted in commentary about Aaron being told by Moses to step forward to leadership[vi]. It is suggested that Aaron was reluctant about leadership, worried about a past failure. However he was told “it is for/because of this that you were chosen[vii]”. This quality of humility and reluctance to lead is itself the virtue that makes Aaron deserving of leadership[viii].  Sanders seems to have a combination of humility and passion which I am drawn to.   

I also have been thinking about the qualities attributed to honey and salt in our traditions. Honey is seen as highly potent and not at all complex: it simply adds to the flavour of foods. Salt is complicated. If you put a lot of salt on a plant, it will destroy it; however, put salt on other foods and it preserves them. So salt is complicated in that it’s  both preserving and destructive. Of the two elements, it is salt that is required in the temple and honey that is generally banned. That might be of some comfort to Clinton or Kasich supporters if complexity was the only thing that mattered.  Humility and passion, coupled with an embrace of complexity and caution, are some of the needed qualities for leadership. As Ed Kotch said when he was running for Mayor of New York, “there are many people better qualified than me to be mayor. None of them are running this year”.  I pray that whoever leads both the US and Australia be blessed with the required qualities to do so.   

---

[i] The Guardian

[ii] Torat Cohanim, in Torah Shlaima p3, 1

[iii] Leviticus 10:1

[iv] Schneerson, Rabbi Y. Y. in Hayom Yom,  21 Adar II

[v] Talmud, Eruvin 63a, Yoma 53a, and Torah Cohanim

[vi] Leviticus 9:7

[vii] Torah Cohanim cited in Rashi

[viii] Baal Shem Tov in Degel Machne Efrayim, in Greenberg, A.Y. (1992) Torah Gems, Orenstien, Tel Aviv p.266