RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/books/review/how-to-fight-anti-semitism-bari-

Bari Weiss has written what must be judged a brave book. That it must be is a badge of shame for the “progressive” America with which she identifies.

Should it call for courage for a politically liberal American Jew like Weiss to point out that Jews, though a tiny percentage of the population of the United States, are the victims of over half of its reported hate crimes? That anti-Jewish rhetoric, once confined to right-wing extremists, now infests the American left, too?

Should someone like Weiss, an editor and opinion writer at The New York Times, have to expect brickbats from her colleagues for observing that a vicious demonization of Israel and its supporters has become routine in much of the American left and endemic on college and university campuses? That whatever its failings, Israel is a remarkable human adventure that deserves at least as much sympathy as criticism? That it is only natural for a Jew to care deeply about a Jewish state’s welfare and survival? That Jewish solidarity is as legitimate as any other form of human solidarity?

Should she have to fear ostracism or damage to her journalistic reputation for pointing out that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, while theoretically distinguishable, have long merged into a single ugly phenomenon? Or that it is obscene, less than a century after the Holocaust, to class Jews with their historical “white oppressors”?

Unfortunately, as Weiss writes in “How to Fight Anti-Semitism,” the answer to all these questions is yes.

Weiss’s book, whose careful organization and articulate prose belie its hurried composition in the wake of last October’s Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, is not just about the left. (A native of Pittsburgh herself, she retains a strong attachment to its Jewish community.) The Pittsburgh shooter was a lunatic-fringe white supremacist, and “How to Fight Anti-Semitism” seeks to be evenhanded: Its chapter on the anti-Semitism of the left is preceded by a chapter on the anti-Semitism of the right and followed by a chapter on the anti-Semitism of radical Islam. Though not claiming to be original, Weiss is admirably succinct in her explanation of why groups having nothing else in common are united in their dislike or hatred of Jews. “In the eyes of the anti-Semite,” she writes, “the Jew is … everything.” It is not the actual Jew that most anti-Semites hate (many of them have never met one) but what they project onto him. “He is whatever the anti-Semite needs him to be.”

https://www.city-journal.org/html/who-killed-horatio-alger-13413.html

The title character of Horatio Alger’s 1867 novel Ragged Dick is an illiterate New York bootblack who, bolstered by his optimism, honesty, industriousness, and desire to “grow up ’spectable,” raises himself into the middle class. Alger’s novels are frequently misunderstood as mere rags-to-riches tales. In fact, they recount their protagonists’ journeys from rags to respectability, celebrating American capitalism and suggesting that the American dream is within everyone’s reach. The novels were idealized, of course; even in America, virtue alone never guaranteed success, and American capitalism during Alger’s time was far from perfect. Nevertheless, the stories were close enough to the truth that they became bestsellers, while America became known as a land of opportunity—a place whose capitalist system benefited the hardworking and the virtuous. In a word, it was a meritocracy.

To this day, Americans are unusually supportive of meritocracy, and their support goes a long way toward explaining their embrace of American-style capitalism. According to one recent study, just 40 percent of Americans attribute higher incomes primarily to luck rather than hard work—compared with 54 percent of Germans, 66 percent of Danes, and 75 percent of Brazilians. But perception cannot survive for long when it is distant from reality, and recent trends seem to indicate that America is drifting away from its meritocratic ideals. If the drifting continues, the result could be a breakdown of popular support for free markets and the demise of America’s unique version of capitalism.

The fundamental role of an economic system, even an extremely primitive one, is to assign responsibility and reward. In animal packs, the responsibility of leadership and the reward of mating opportunities are generally assigned to the strongest. In human societies, responsibility tends to take the form of employment, and the rewards are money and prestige. Because physical strength has long since lost its importance, economic systems determine in various ways who receives the responsibilities and the rewards. The dominant criterion in traditional society was birth: the king’s firstborn son was the next king; the landowner’s firstborn son, the new landowner; and the son of the company’s owner, the next chief executive. Most modern societies, by contrast, try to select and reward according to merit. Indeed, surveys show that in the abstract, most people in developed countries agree with the idea that merit should be rewarded.

It isn’t easy to decide what constitutes merit, of course. Consider an environment with which I’m familiar: American academia. Let’s say you want to determine who the best professors are. How do you rank publications? Do you value the number of papers that someone has written, or their impact?

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/14/bari-weiss-explains-fight-rise-anti-semitism/

You don’t need to convince me, but for anyone who remains skeptical that rising domestic anti-Semitism is a threat, Bari Weiss’s How to Fight Anti-Semitism offers a compelling survey of the present scene. The New York Times opinion editor and writer examines anti-Semitism on the right, the left, and among Islamists.

Weiss describes her book as being “for anyone, Jew or gentile, who cannot look away from what is brewing in this country and in the world and wants to do something to stop it.” I appreciate her casting a wide net, especially on such a civilizationally important topic, but this is primarily a book by a center-left writer for a center-left audience. That said, because I agree with Weiss that leftist anti-Semitism tends to be “more insidious and perhaps more existentially dangerous,” I didn’t mind that addressing the left was not only her clear passion, but also her strong suit.

This book should still engage readers from the right, though, even if it isn’t pitched squarely at us. Weiss writes knowledgeably about her topic, deftly weaving historical episodes, observations from writers and thinkers, and her opinions into one coherent argument that feels something like an extended version of Weiss’s columns on the subject.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/09/14/the-war-on-common-sense/

Faltering belief in common sense is behind the rejection of the Founders’ idea of America. More broadly, it is behind the astonishing rejection of Western civilization by its own people.

When Thomas Paine appealed to “common sense” to make the case for American independence, it probably never crossed his mind that there would ever be a need to make the case for common sense itself, at least not in America. But common-sense thinking has fallen out of favor. Because it has been under attack for a very long time, it no longer gets the respect it once commanded. Deep thinkers have discarded it, elites have learned to disdain it, and many of us have had our confidence in its value badly shaken.

The consequences are enormous. Faltering belief in common sense is behind the rejection of the Founders’ idea of America. More broadly, it is behind the astonishing rejection of Western civilization by its own people—a rejection that has reached what looks to be a civilization-ending crisis in Europe.

Examples of the war on common sense are now everywhere in public life. How about the denial of the plain fact that humans are either male or female?

Not long ago, a boy in a tutu and a tiara who claimed he was a girl would still be regarded as a boy. Today, academic and cultural elites, as well as government officials, insist that “gender identity” is more real than biology. They say there are many genders, and one website tells me there are 63. Elites tell us we had better get with the many-gender program, or else. And while we are at it, we had better get politically correct about marriage. We are told that marriage no longer means one thing, a union between a man and a woman. How long will it be until we have 63 varieties of marriage?

The war on moral common sense has reached new heights of absurdity. If we point out a need for common-sense steps to protect ourselves from Islamic terrorists, we are said to suffer a psychological condition called “Islamophobia.” But unlike other phobias, such as claustrophobia, this condition is said to make us victimizers rather than victims. Similarly, if we say that America needs to secure its borders, we are met by cries that “walls are immoral.” Evidently, the common-sense wisdom that good walls make good neighbors has been taken down by the masters of political correctness.

https://standpointmag.co.uk/issues/july-august-2019/judaism-literary-lust-and-fat-camp/

This summer I’m doing two things highly irregular for a 26-year-old. In August, I’m getting married—well under the average age for most British women who, according to ONS data released in March, now wait until they are 31.5 to get hitched. And before I get married? I’m converting to Judaism—again, a little rogue for a twentysomething with no previous religious leanings, especially when religion is on the decline amongst us millennials, as we find meaning and affirmation through social media instead.

Discovering Judaism has been a profound and totally fascinating process, from celebrating festivals to the spiritual joy of synagogue, and challah with chicken soup, and I’ve had huge support from several brilliant rabbis. But as the date of my admission to the club draws near, there’s one book which I’ve been revising from religiously. Not the Torah or any other prayer book. My bible right now is Judaism For Dummies. Yes, one of those deeply Nineties, glaring yellow-and-black textbooks dedicated to marketing and Excel and running small businesses, which sold like hot cakes every time a new version of Windows for your PC came out, thanks to chapters like “That ‘cut and paste’ stuff” and “Cruising the World Wide Web”. How quaint. It’s the sort of guide Ricky Gervais would have on a shelf in The Office, the joke present you might buy a friend about to start up an ill-fated cocktail bar or yoga studio. When you can learn how to do literally anything from YouTube tutorials and Wikipedia, For Dummies is amusingly retro (if slightly insulting when recommended by one’s rabbi). But my prejudice turns out to be completely unwarranted. Judaism For Dummies is brilliant. It breaks down all the basics about Jewish traditions, history, festivals and practices that we’ve covered in classes into witty, clear chunks; there are jolly stories and factual check lists; practical tips and signposts marking particularly crucial points. There’s even a recipe for matzo balls, which I’ve threatened to attempt for my new husband. The For Dummies guide speaks to my inner schoolchild prepping for GCSEs. Now I just need some coloured magic markers for colour coding my notes.

***

And a Football For Dummies, apparently—or at least a Standing Up To Everyday Sexism For Dummies. I’m used to my fiancé’s ability to fill a lull in small talk with any male stranger, anywhere in the world, with football: Argentinian mountain guides, Italian hotel managers, every cab driver ever. It’s fine. Not annoying in the slightest. Then halfway through a refresher driving lesson (I haven’t driven in five years, and never in London—learning to do so is my way of adulting pre-married life), the instructor and I run out of chat. We’ve covered his upcoming holiday to Kosovo and daughter’s degree, my job and imminent wedding, Brexit. There’s a pause. Then: “So, what team does your fiancé support then?” This is obviously outrageous sexism  but I’m concentrating on not crashing into an HGV in front, and rather than launching into an impassioned speech about his lazy gendered assumptions and how brilliant the FIFA Women’s World Cup is going to be, I mumble “Um, Arsenal?” And spend the next 40 minutes in an entirely one-sided conversation minutely dissecting the Europa League match by match and the myriad failings of Arsenal manager Unai Emery. I concentrate so closely on my driving as a distraction that I pass the session with flying colours.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-lefts-lucrative-nonprofits-11567723794

This year’s Democratic presidential candidates have a favorite whipping boy: “powerful interests.” Get ready to hear again in coming weeks how the National Rifle Association rules Washington, how the Koch empire dominates politics, how the right is pouring “dark money” into its agenda. And then remember that these are among the biggest whoppers of the 2020 election. One side will do battle with the aid of a huge and savvy nonprofit political empire—and it isn’t the right. Though the sooner Republicans understand that, the better.

A helpful tutorial arrived this week, “Power Grab,” a new book by Republican former Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah. Mr. Chaffetz has been digging into nonprofits since his time as House Oversight Committee chairman, and the book details how powerful the liberal nonprofit sector has grown. It may surprise many Americans—those who read daily stories about conservative “influence”—that the likes of the NRA, Judicial Watch and the National Organization for Marriage barely rank by comparison to the assets and revenue of Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union or the Nature Conservancy.

These aren’t only big political players; they’re the biggest political players. In 2018 the nonprofit watchdog Capital Research Center analyzed grants handed out in the 2014 election year by six big foundations on the right (including the Bradley and Charles Koch foundations) versus six on the left (including the Open Society and Tides foundations). Liberal public-policy charities, organized under chapter 501(c)(3) of the tax code, bagged $7.4 billion of this foundation money in 2014. For conservative charities, the figure was a mere $2.2 billion. That $7.4 billion also dwarfed total 2013-14 campaign receipts to federal, state and local campaigns ($4.1 billion) and spending that cycle by independent groups ($830 million).

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/disregarding-separation-of-powers-has-real-life-consequences/

The rule of law is undermined, and liberty diminished.

Editor’s note: This article is adapted from Neil Gorsuch’s book A Republic, If You Can Keep It, which will be published this month.

The separation of powers and its role in protecting individual liberty and the rule of law can sound pretty abstract. I confess it seemed that way to me in my high-school civics class. I came to appreciate the genius of the Founders’ design more fully only years later, when as a judge I saw what happens to real people in real cases when the separation of powers goes unattended. Let me share with you a few of their stories, some of which you will see laid out more fully later. They’re just a sampling of so many that came across my desk.

Caring Hearts. Caring Hearts is a small business in Colorado that provides Medicare nursing services to the elderly. One year, the government performed an audit and concluded that Caring Hearts had improperly billed hundreds of thousands of dollars of services, so it slapped a fine of over $800,000 on the company. The trouble was, the government applied the wrong rules. Instead of applying the regulations in effect during the time Caring Hearts provided its services, it faulted the company for failing to abide more-onerous rules that the agency adopted only years later. How did the government get its own rules so wrong? Every year, the executive agency administering Medicare has used the legislative authority delegated to it by Congress to issue a river of legally binding regulations and thousands more “sub regulatory guidance documents” to explain those regulations. The agency had apparently written so many new legally binding rules that even it had lost track of all the changes.