Ritual Contamination and Liberalism

This entry was posted in General on by .

David Klinghoffer’s latest assault on liberalism — published on Jewcy.com — is an attempt to frame liberalism in terms of materialism and materialism in terms of the biblical idea of tumah, ritual impurity.

The piece is particularly shoddy, especially when he goes through specific liberal positions and tries to articulate how they are functions of this (depraved) materialism. Below are Klinghoffer’s words, with my responses.

The understanding of liberalism as the political expression of materialism will be familiar to many political conservatives. I first heard that formulation from Michael Medved, who laid it out in detail in a speech. But the Bible made the same connection millennia ago. Virtually every liberal position on a hot-button issue can be explained this way. Some lefty views emphasize, as Hirsch put it, the “powers of the forces of nature.�

Gay marriage: The implicit justification for this insists that gays are in the grip of nature. They have no choice about their sexual behavior. So let’s endorse their love in civil law.

While, natural sexual proclivities are not irrelevant to the conversation, it is not the “justification” for gay marriage. Isn’t this an equality issue? If heterosexuals are allowed to choose one loved-one to get health insurance and tax-breaks and hospital visitation rights with, so should homosexuals.

Abortion: Here it’s women who are supposedly in the grip of nature, specifically sexual desire. The lady made a mistake and got pregnant. Liberals believe she can’t be held responsible for this, as denying her an abortion would do. The solution to unwanted pregnancy is a material one (ten minutes of vacuuming the uterus) over a spiritual one (taking responsibility for the outcome of sexual intercourse).

First off, it’s notable (and disturbing) that Klinghoffer seems to believe that unwanted pregnancies are always a woman’s “mistake.” What about rape? Broken condoms? Two very different things, certainly, but accounting for them would have at least made Klinghoffer sound less misogynistic.

Gun control: A gun isn’t a force of nature, but it’s treated as if it were one. If this particular material object is found in the house, we are virtually compelled to abuse it, endangering ourselves and others. The only solution is to restrict gun ownership.

Death is bad. Violence is not ideal. Are those liberal values? There are libertarian reasons to reject gun control, but saying that liberals support gun control because they believe we have no agency over our animalistic bodies is (or, I think, should be) obviously absurd.

Global warming: We are in the grip of a vengeful, enraged nature! “Angry nature is holding a gun to our heads,� as the magazine of the Sierra Club warns.

The entire fight against global warming is predicated on the assumption that humans caused it and can take steps toward remedying it. And if I wanted to play Klinghoffer’s game, there certainly are spiritual values at stake: The health of our (or God’s) planet. Are the renunciation of potential death and destruction liberal values?

Affirmative action: Racial discrimination, whether favoring a minority or not, is based on the assumption that people are trapped by naturally-determined limitations associated with their skin color.

I thought it was based on the acknowledgment that certain groups have been historically underprivileged and discriminated against.

I don’t always find Klinghoffer’s writing so obviously problematic (I blogged about an article I disagreed with, but somewhat appreciated, a couple of months ago). But, I have to admit, sometimes he makes me nostalgic for the days when Dennis Prager was everyone’s favorite Jewish conservative.

Posted on March 23, 2007

Note: The opinions expressed here are the personal views of the author. All comments on MyJewishLearning are moderated. Any comment that is offensive or inappropriate will be removed. Privacy Policy

2 thoughts on “Ritual Contamination and Liberalism

  1. lornewel

    As one who no doubt bears the label “conservative”, I hold many (but not all) the positions written about by Klinghoffer, but he seems to be extremely poor at both articulating them and explaining thier rationale. Sometimes, when I try out some new “framework” for looking at topics (as he seems to have done with materialism and tumah) the logic gets pretty “forced.” Life is so complex that it takes a pretty broad and complex “worldview” to fit many things into it.

    But, Daniel, I thought your response on the issue of gay marriage was naive. Being in Canada where things have progressed further on that than in the US, it has become clear, as conservatives had predicted, that homosexuals were not content that all the laws were changed to give gay couples all the same civil rights as heterosexual couples. They continued pushing to have their relationships recognized as and actually called “marriage.” And our courts granted that. It is not only about tolerance or even acceptance. There are still pushes being made to have homosexual actions and realtionships governmentally celebrated and actually promoted. In my home province, the government settled a human rights tribunal case by entering into a settlement contract with a gay couple to allow them input into school curriculum that no other individual citzens or couples have. So, in my home province, gay couples have more civil rights than non-gay.

  2. Pingback: jspot » Blog Archive » Debunking David Klinghoffer

Comments are closed.