Laboring for Zion

As a political junkie, I find the identity crisis on the Jewish/Israeli Left absolutely fascinating.  As a Zionist and a history buff, I find it heartbreaking.

Earlier this year, my radar went up when I read Jo Ellen Green Kaiser's article "Charting Israel's Role in Progressive Jewish Identity" @ ZEEK: A Jewish Journal of Thought and Culture.  An off-shoot of the socialist Forward, I knew to expect a left-wing bias going into the relatively new venture, something I have no problem with as long as it is stated outright.  (Whereas delivering your own version of truth while claiming to be unbiased is, quite frankly, the bull of a media era gone by, IMHO.)  What shocked me about this article was not the fact that it was written from a leftist standpoint, but what the author actually articulated to be, in their own words, the proper "progressive" point of view, namely that Israel had no place in a "Progressive Jewish Identity."  

If anything should shake a Jew to the core, it is the idea that Israel has no place in their identity.  

Argued strictly semantically, the term "Jew" comes from the Hebrew Yehudah, referencing one of the 12 sons of Israel and one of the 12 territories in the nation of Israel, later known as the southern kingdom after the Israel-Judah split.  After Roman occupation, the territory became known as "Judea" and the inhabitants as "Jews".  The term has since taken on a series of negative connotations to the point where some Jewish people do not like even being called "Jews", instead preferring the term "Jewish". 

Bottom line: Israel is not only a family name, it is a national name, whereas "Jewish" and its associated term "Jew" are terms created out of division and diaspora.  Before there were Jews, there were Israelis.  You cannot be Jewish without having an ancestral tie to Israel.  Moreover, to try and distance yourself from such an identity is equivalent to giving yourself an identity grounded in oppression.

Green Kaiser argued that choosing a Jewish versus an Israeli identity was a choice that "disowned the concept of diaspora."  How?  Very simply put, the author argues that because aliyah is a viable option, "diaspora" doesn't exist.  Instead of living in exile, Jews choose not to move to Israel.  It is an argument as equally semantic as the one I reasoned above.  In the mind of the author, in order for the diaspora not to exist, Israel must exist.  Progressive Jews, then, intentionally choose not to become a part of Israel, but still need it as a safety blanket in order to make free choices about where to live in the world.

Somehow, I can't help but read into this argument a metaphor of a teenager who complains endlessly about their parents before asking them for 20 bucks and a ride to the movies.  Most parents blow off the heat they take from their kids because they remember what it was like to be a teenager and to live through that awkward period where you don't know who you are or where you belong in the world.  

That is the identity crisis I see going on in the Left.  It is an identity crisis echoed by the author in ZEEK who wrote, 

"Jewish Voice for Peace got it right when they yelled, 'Not in My Name.' They understood on a visceral level that U.S. Jewry and the values and actions of the Jewish State cannot be separated. When Israel acts, it acts in the name of the Jewish homeland. How can one be Jewish and not be named in that way? Israel defines the space against which U.S. Jews construct their own identity."

This argument illustrates the two primary problems with the Left's viewpoint.  Firstly, it assumes that all American Jews identify themselves in contrast to Israel, that is to say if we take the author's viewpoint, against Israel.  Secondly, and more importantly, the author assumes we must naturally be opposed to the entire government, and therefore the entire national identity, of Israel if we disagree with one or some of its actions.


Truth be told very few, even on the Left, are that radical as to take an "all or nothing" approach to Israeli politics.  Politics is a game of bargaining; no one should know that better than the party of Ben Gurion, who had his own struggles with the "radical periphery" of his Labor Zionist party.  Unfortunately for the Left, the radical voices have captured the attention of the politicians and the media, leaving Labor with an entire generation to re-shape if they even hope to maintain any Zionist identity into the future.


There are those on the Left who are waking up to the reality of their wing's identity crisis.  Last week Forward's Senior Columnist J.J. Goldberg wrote about rehabilitating Israel's "lost love" for Labor, a move that would require the abandonment of the grossly ineffective party chair Ehud Barak in favor of the pro-education, pro-integration MK Avishay Braverman.  It has been argued that this would be a move back to the roots of a Labor Zionism that managed to be proudly Zionistic while granting Arab Israelis equal rights as citizens of the Jewish state.  Oddly enough, the move would also require reliquishing the West Bank in the name of strategic defense; it is easier to defend a border militarily than try to run a police state with 3 million people who want to kill you.  Arguments, all of which, sound a lot more logical, reasoned, and centrist than the cries of "foul" coming from organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace, flotilla activists, and "progressive" Rabbis who are turning synagogues into nothing more than minyanim for social justice.


A week later, the Forward published an article written by Ameinu President Kenneth Bob, in which he draws a line in the sand between his self-defined progressive organization and Jewish Voice for Peace's "agnostic" approach to the sovereign Jewish identity of Israel.  Bob writes,

"That is what separates progressive Zionists from JVP. We cannot be “agnostic” about the most central issue in the conflict, the importance of a solution that includes two states for two peoples, Israel and Palestine. It is ludicrous to suggest that one can be involved in the Jewish communal discourse about the future of the Middle East without having an opinion on whether Israel should exist. In addition, JVP’s stated support for a complete suspension of American military aid to Israel just emphasizes the organization’s cavalier attitude toward Israel’s survival."

Bob stands firm on his organization's two-state solution platform, encouraging the Jewish community to support "open and frank discussions around controversial issues related to Israel" but admits that, "unfortunately, our communal track record has not always been good in this regard."  Bob's admonishment to progressive Zionists to distance themselves from anti-Zionists like JVP is a positive one that is long overdue and will, no doubt, receive its fair amount of criticism from those who think his organization's stance isn't Left enough.  But it is an argument that needs to be made if Labor Zionism is going to survive on either side of the world.


Perhaps this long-overdue self-examination has been inspired by Peter Beinart who finally put voice to the Left's identity crisis when he published his "groundbreaking" essay "The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment" last May.  My thoughts then are the same now: "What we need, on the whole, is a sense of communal self-actualization. ...[Jewish Americans] need to take purpose and meaning in their Jewishness as individuals by engaging with the community instead of running away from it."


Call them "progressive" or tag them by organizational names, there is a real segment of the Left wing that is running, fast and furious, from Israel.  And, whether the Left likes it or not, many young Jews in Israel and abroad are following suit.  If the Left wing cannot combat the dissention in their own ranks in this generation the next may know a Labor, but no Zionism will be attached.


In his well-written extensive critique titled "The Decline and Fall of Labor Zionism," former WJC leader Isi Leibler writes:

"The challenge for democratic socialists in Israel is to resurrect a party which has become a haven for defeatists, post-Zionists, former Marxists and other lost souls. ...There are strong grounds to believe that the majority of Labor supporters remain committed Zionists. Most would also probably agree that despite the noble intentions of the architects, the Oslo Accords were flawed because our designated peace partner, Arafat, sought our destruction rather than seeking a peace settlement. For this as well as other reasons, there are grounds for hope that in the wake of a massive electoral defeat the silent majority of Israeli social democrats will rally and try to revitalize Labor Zionism from within.


If not, a new Labor Zionist party must be created to cater for those on the Left who recognize the need to renew the Labor Zionist tradition which played such a noble role in nation building and leading the Jewish state during its formative years."

My husband is a third generation alum of the Labor Zionist camp movement Habonim Dror.  It is a movement his grandfather and great-grandfather helped to establish in America in the 1930's.  In the book Arise and Build: The Story of American Habonim, the introduction to the movement magazine Haboneh is quoted:

"We as Habonim are part and parcel of the great Socialist Zionist movement which has borne the brunt of the burden for laying the foundation of a revived homeland.  We, the Habonim, believe unshakingly that the homeland must be built, and we must build it.  We do our share while yet in America, materially and spiritually; and soon many of us will be personally transplanted to Eretz Israel to be part of the new Jewish society."

One of my husband's favorite things to do around the campfire with his fellow campers was call out various camp chants and slogans as the conversation deems appropriate. One of the more popular ones is, "Hypocritical!  Hypocritical!  Two-face!  Two-face!" 

The alarm has sounded for the Left.  Now it is their turn to look themselves in the face, lest the movement that once labored for Zion is only remembered for laboring against her.

Why I am, and am Not a Conservative

Recently I was asked to define my location in the political spectrum. 

"Well," I responded with carefully considered words, "I would have to say I'm a conservative.  That's probably the closest to any kind of definition I could get, inasmuch as I believe in a limited government and a strong national defense."

One of the gentlemen I was with gave me a wary look as I continued.

"I wouldn't call myself a Republican.  After all," I explained with a chuckle, "I wouldn't want to be confused with being like Lindsay Graham.  Besides," I added, "I dislike being affiliated with political parties."

"Oh," the wary-eyed gentleman replied, "I skip all of that and just say I'm more Right than Atilla the Hun."

I'm not quite sure if he, a card-carrying member of the Republican Party, was criticising me for being a cop-out or not.  And if he was, that's okay; my beliefs also include the idea that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, whether I agree with them or not.

But the exchange did inspire me to delve further into my own self-questioning (something we Jews do more often than not) as to why I dislike affiliating myself with any particular political party or generalized belief system.

Recently I picked up a copy of Fire from the Heartland, a Citizens United Productions documentary on conservative women.  It's basically a litany of "famous" conservative female talking heads intermixed with a lot of B-roll of the American flag and other Rockwell-esque imagery.  The majority of the statements these women make are along the same lines.  As they tell their own stories of personal struggle (one whose divorced mother raised them paycheck to paycheck, another who was given over to her father's girlfriend to be raised because her own mother was a drug addict) they all concluded in the same fashion: "Work hard and you'll succeed, that's what makes America great, and that is the conservative vision." 

I suppose if you started out living in poverty and managed to become a professional who was so successful they were asked to be interviewed for a film, you'd think America was pretty great.  And I don't deny the validity of their opinions; they are based on personal experiences, and nothing is more real than an opinion based on personal experience.

So, what have my own personal experiences taught me about the greatness of the conservative vision?  The most I could conclude after watching Fire from the Heartland is that, while this American vision may work for some people, it hasn't ever really worked for me.

Let's start with forced multicultural education in elementary school.  For some reason, my township decided that, in an effort to be "multicultural", they would bus the kids from the newer (a.k.a. "whiter" "yuppie-er") schools to the older, still-as-white schools within the district.  Then, as we all sat together, our white teachers would shake African rain sticks in front of us and tell us how cool the deserts and jungles of the Congo were.  Afterwards, we would break up into small groups for "community building" activities.

Invariably, they would take the ten kids who represented various shades of ethnicity and split them up, one to each group.  The kid assigned to my group was a fellow classmate I'd known since Kindergarten.  In fact, this kid had actually been my "Kindergarten Boyfriend" so to speak--because holding hands during reading time is the essence of married life to the mind of a five year old. 

The first thing we had to do as a group was come up with a team name.  My fellow classmate (the "tan" one) came up with an idea.  I said it was stupid.  He proceeded to tell our teacher that I called him stupid, and when I clarified that I thought his idea was stupid, I was told that was an unacceptable critique, and I shouldn't be picking on him because he was different.

Looking back on the situation later, I would realize that I should have been the last one to be accused of racism, given that I was his first interracial romance (before I even knew he was "different"!) but, as they say, hindsight is 20-20--even if the lens of affirmative action isn't.

Needless to say, the "tan" boy's idea was the one we were encouraged to pick.

Experiential Lesson #1: The darker you are, the more things go your way.

Now, let's jump ahead to my job-hunting experiences after graduate school.  I completed my Masters program with a solid 4.0 GPA.  I was a member of two international honor societies.  I had been awarded various academic scholarships and awards for academic achievement.  I possessed excellent letters of recommendation.

And I couldn't get my foot in the door anywhere.

In fact, I can say for certain that a good 97% of the interviews I've been on have happened because I knew someone who could get me in the door.  Out of the three "cold" interviews I walked into, two fizzled in the third round because of jealous female employees, and one turned into my first job at a bank-- because, I later found out, I was the only person who had no spelling mistakes on their application.

But Conservative organizations would be different.  They would not judge me based on who I knew-- right?  They would examine my credentials and be thoroughly impressed--they would want me to contribute my talents and skills to their team, right?

Well, one would, as long as I was willing to work in the DC Metro area for $25,000 a year. 

"I can't even pay rent on that," I told the interviewer.

"Well," she openly admitted, "a lot of our workers find roommates."

"I don't know anyone around here.  I'm completely new to the area," I explained.

"Well, a lot of people look on church bulletin boards."

"Uh, huh," I replied while playing casually with the Star of David around my neck.

After I interviewed for that position, I had a meeting with the head of another Conservative non-profit in downtown D.C.  He proceeded to invite me into his office where we kibitzed for 45 minutes about Pravda, Ann Coulter, and policy platforms, before he told me that I ought to just move to D.C. and intern somewhere for a year, and I was bound to get my foot in the door somewhere.

Intern?

You're telling someone with thousands in student loan debt to work for free?

For a year?

And then, maybe, someone would like me well enough to pay me?

What the hell kind of capitalist are you?

Later I would explain it this way to my grandmother: They expected me to be a trust-fund baby.  No one with my brains and my political views comes from a working class Jewish family.  If they expect you to work for free, they expect you to have the economic support from home to sit on while you build your career.

Experiential Lesson #2: The more people you know, and the more silver spoons you were born with, the more successful you will become.

Some people will argue that I just didn't "put my nose to the grindstone" and "make it work."  That I could have gone down to DC, found a room to rent off that church bulletin board, found a job bartending on nights and weekends, and worked that internship for all it was worth.  I could have lived at poverty level for a few years, even deferred my loan payments-- it would have been an investment in my career.

To which I could easily argue back that I would have been looked at cross-eyed by my church-going landlords, put myself in awkward, even dangerous situations trying to find part time employment, and put my future and my quickly growing debt in the hands of people who couldn't be bothered to throw a stipend my way.

The truth of it is, I don't know for sure what would've happened if I took the risk and followed through.  But I can say with certainty that it looked like a bad investment from the outset, and the actions of these two organizations did not match up to the great beliefs Conservatives tout.  If you believe so much in rewarding good effort, why wouldn't you pay a living wage to talented employees?  Do you want to solicit success or grunt work?

Which leads me to Experiential Lesson #3: Working hard does not result in being rewarded for what you are worth.

I have yet to get a good explanation for the simple fact that custodians and cleaners consistently rank at the bottom of the pay scale of any company or organization.  These are the people who clean toilets-- if they weren't there and didn't do a good job, you would literally be catching who-knows-what disease at work-- and yet they reside at the bottom of the pay scale hill.

I have a number of friends who are freelancers in the television world.  They live job-to-job, always hunting for work, and often scheduling themselves into 60-hour work weeks because they don't know where or if they'll get paid 6 months down the road.  They work all hours of the day and night, they commute to various locations in the tri-state area, and sometimes the shoot they are on requires them to be in some dangerous locations. 

They get paid hourly.

They have to set aside money to pay their own taxes at the end of the year.

They do not receive health benefits.

I am the last person to go around accusing "evil corporations" of all the crimes in the world.  I believe privately-owned businesses, no matter the size, are the backbone of our economy.  But when people talk about corporate greed, why is no one talking about the freelancers who work 40 hours a week for major networks like FOX and NBC, not even getting healthcare, let alone a guarantee of a steady paycheck?

What is the Conservative answer to that?  That these people should work harder?  They put in as many hours--often more--than most office-working Americans.  Yet, because of the nature of the industry, they have to bust their butts to accumulate enough hours in order to get into a Union so they can get some contribution toward their healthcare costs.  Where are the anti-Union, pro-Capitalist Conservatives who demand that all companies provide quality healthcare options to their employees?

What's more, where are the Conservatives demanding that these billion-dollar companies not abuse the term "freelance" or "part time" in their attempts to avoid putting employees on healthcare rolls?

I am no advocate of universal, government-run healthcare.  I am, however, an advocate of morality over greed.  Whether you're reading Hillel or Jesus, the Jewish thing to do is to treat your employees as you would like to be treated, and if you're treated to an employer-provided healthcare plan, so should the crew who keeps your network on the air.

So, AJW, how could you call yourself a Conservative if you see all of these gross injustices and flaws in the Conservative belief system?

Good question.  Every political belief system has its flaws for this simple reason: politics is nothing more than a human attempt to create order out of chaos-- and that is something only G-d Himself can do.  I identify myself as a Conservative because Conservatives recognize that G-d is the giver of liberty and, because of that fact, we have the right to live free lives, to make free choices, and to be respected as we respect others.

Sure, liberals (progressives, socialists, whatever they want to be called these days) may rail against the injustice of the privileged monied classes and the "evil" corporations ganging up on their version of the "little guy," (I don't know if I'd fit into that category or not; I am a woman, but I'm not very "tan") but their answer to the problem is a human one.  They embrace systems that enshrine men into godlike positions and history shows that once these men are empowered they become some of the worst dictators humankind has ever seen.  Simply put, leftists either deny that G-d exists, or that He even gives a damn, leaving us to do it all on our own.

What's more liberating:

Taking a job you didn't really want, paying your bills, getting yourself out of debt, and having a nice life filled with family, friends, and good times anyway--

OR

Taking a check from the government, waiting for the government to tell you when you need medical treatment, watching your parents get euthanized by death counselors when they are diagnosed as being a burden to the State, and living your life behind closed doors because your race/creed/sexuality/etc. don't mesh with the way the government says you should live?

If Lessons 1-3 have taught me anything, it is that there is no justice on this earth.  So, why believe that we can create it ourselves?  Ask any Russian you know; no one ever said, "With Stalin, all things are possible."

So, for lack of a better term, I identify myself politically as a Conservative.  It is a flawed system at best and, perhaps, it is because I've been afforded opportunities to see it face-to-face that I openly admit the only flag I will ever truly wave will be Israeli, and the only group I ever join will be the one I was born into by choice.  I am no starry-eyed political groupie and that will always result in my being an outsider in some regard.

But as long as that means I can see the truth, I am willing to pitch my tent outside the gate.

Raally to Restore Aapathy: Two Legs Good, Four Legs Better

Jointly published @ OurLastStand.com

There’s a reason I don’t dress up anymore for Halloween.  I’ve finally reached an age in which, if I want a candy bar, I can just go out and buy one for myself.  I don’t need to dress up in some silly costume and parade myself around for someone else’s amusement in order to get free candy that hopefully won’t stink because I wasn’t the one who got to pick it out.  The act of Halloween used to be the grand litmus test for adulthood in this country; maturity not only came with the financial liberty of a paycheck, it came with the liberty of character—you could be yourself instead of costuming up in that horrible pink bunny suit that Aunt Linda thought you’d just “look so cute in!”

And therein lays the perfect metaphor for this weekend’s Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear.  There are Americans who want their government to back off so they can make the decisions and then there are Americans who want their government to back off and make the decisions for them.  Both are sets of characters with pretty interesting wardrobe choices.  For instance, some choose to wave the flag, while others choose to turn it into a pair of parachute pants.  As for the audience at the Rally, all I can say is, I hope Stewart & Colbert’s wranglers brought a lot of candy.
One of the proposed goals of the rally—held on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.—was to be “non-political.”  Let’s just say that the organizers and commentators succeeded in being as “non-political” as the ladies on The View.

Critics love to claim that Glenn Beck’s 8/28 was a Tea Party rally.  Since they’ve felt the need to pit 10/30 against 8/28, it would then be logical to claim that 10/30 was a Progressive rally.  But, since 10/2 illustrated the powerful uselessness of the term “Progressive” when it comes to attracting people to rallies on the National Mall, the mainstream media instead decided to paint The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear as the “rational” choice to Glenn Beck’s “radical teabaggers”.

Wait—let me get this straight: a rally of middle-class families waving American flags is extreme in comparison to a rally filled with middle class singles and DINKs (Double-Income-No-Kids) dressed in Halloween costumes waiving random signage ranging from punctuation critiques to the now age-old comparisons between Bush and Hitler.

Yeah.

I will say that the content of 8/28 was definitely more “Rally traditional” than that of “Stewart’s Sanity Tour 2010”, featuring performances by, among other artists, The Roots, Ozzy Osbourne, Kid Rock, the formerly-known-as Cat Stevens, Yusuf Islam, TV’s Mythbusters, and R2D2.  Then again, according to one Rally-goer, "'Some people were disappointed that Stewart didn't ask people to vote or that there wasn't more politics. But Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert recognize that they're entertainers,' said [self-proclaimed Socialist] Bill. 'And that's pretty cool.'"

Wait a minute.  Even the socialists are happy with a glorified free rock concert now?  What would Stalin think!  Apparently Huffington Post writer Raj Patel thought of the former socialist dictator/opera hater when he commented that Stewart and Colbert’s humor was “impotently polite” and that he “…suspect[ed] that it's through Bill’s…brand of political understanding, rather than Kid Rock's, that change will happen.”

Way to be non-political.

But, then again, Raj, like any true Marxist, can turn history on its ear to serve his own agenda when he has to:

“Reasonableness is, however, genuinely under threat. The Tea Party understands the US Constitution as a divine document. In so doing, they pine for a pre-Enlightenment politics where God -- not reason -- is the ultimate arbiter of political life.”

Apparently Arianna Huffington needs to spend a few more bus-dollars on some professional development courses for her staff, beginning with History 101.  If it weren’t for the Enlightenment—the intellectual move against the notion that a monarch is Divinely appointed—America would not exist:

Many of the most distinguished leaders of the American Revolution--Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Paine--were powerfully influenced by English and--to a lesser extent--French Enlightenment thought. The God who underwrites the concept of equality in the Declaration of Independence is the same deist God Rousseau worshipped, not that venerated in the traditional churches which still supported and defended monarchies all over Europe. Jefferson and Franklin both spent time in France--a natural ally because it was a traditional enemy of England--absorbing the influence of the French Enlightenment. The language of natural law, of inherent freedoms, of self-determination which seeped so deeply into the American grain was the language of the Enlightenment, though often coated with a light glaze of traditional religion, what has been called our "civil religion.”

Moron.

Oh, wait, I’m sorry.  I’m not supposed to be “demonizing” anyone during political discourse.  After all, according to Arianna, that is what the Rally to Restore Sanity was all about: “We can disagree with each other without demonizing each other.”
Is that why Rally attendees:

Dressed as the Grim Reaper carrying signs that read “Death Thanks to the GOP”

Carried signs referring to Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin as the “Asses of Evil”

Referred to Glenn Beck as comparable to a “Nazi-Commie-Socialist-Fascist” and a “crazy ass”

Wore shirts that said “Glenn Beck is a Moron” and “Fox Keeps Fear Alive”

Claimed that “If there should’ve been a Hitler sign on anyone, it should’ve been him” referring to former President George W. Bush ? (So much for trying to enact Godwin’s Law, Stewart.)

Is that the kind of anti-demonization, community-loving, centrist attitude you’re talking about, Arianna?  Or are you talking about the attitude of the Rally organizers who invited Yusuf Islam to sing his infamous song Peace Train while carefully forgetting the fact that he, at one time, backed a fundamentalist Islamic fatwa against author Salman Rushdie?  After all, we wouldn’t want to call someone a “Marxist” or a “Terrorist” unless they really were Marxists or  Terrorists—and you can’t be a terrorist if you didn’t drop the bomb, just like you can’t be a Marxist if you only chose to hang out with Marxist professors.

Robert Reich, jumping on Arianna’s post-Rally community spirit bandwagon, proceeded to skewer anyone right of the HuffPost while opining, “We don't believe in winning political arguments through bullying, name-calling, lying, intimidating, or using violence.”  Yes, the Progressives are the saints of the political world; they may drop an unkind word here or there, they may show up at polling places to tell voters to keep their “husband’s agenda going," but they do let their lackeys do all the really dirty work.  As for lying, well, what was that George Costanza used to say?  “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”

A Communist professor once said to me, “Everything is political.”  It didn’t take much delving into Marx to realize that, to the “Nazi-Commie-Socialist-Facists” of this world, politics is the religion through which they live.  For a people who scream so loudly and so often for the “separation of church and state” they have absolutely no problem creating a State Church of their own.  (How very un-Enlightened of them.) 

Perhaps that is the point; perhaps that is how they can claim a lack of political affiliation.  After all, if a message is preached often enough, it simply becomes an unquestioned way of life.

The most patronizing aspect of the Rally is not the signs carried or the messages spoken by the attendees, but the fact that their ignorance is encouraged by those they look up to as leaders.  What could have been this generation’s “Ask What You Can Do For Your Country” moment was nothing more than “A gigantic-scale put-on laced with sincerity.” The sincerity—about their country, their government, and their future—was as palpable for the costume-garbed audience about whom one reporter wrote, “… it was easy to imagine those wearing American flag T-shirts were doing so ironically.” More than one writer commented on the pot-laden ambivalence among the throngs; the D.C.-based Blaze correspondent noted, “Attendees at this rally seemed to have a lot to say about absolutely nothing,” and “no one seemed particularly politically motivated.”

Religious leaders always did prefer their sheep to be blind.

Washington Post columnist Alexandra Petri, described as a “Rally for Sanity cheerleader in the media” encouraged the apathy of her generation when she recently wrote, "Call us Generation I. I for irony, iPhones and the internet… Sum up our lives in a phrase? The Importance of Never Being Too Earnest."  According to the UK’s Guardian, “the atmosphere [of the Rally] was one of irony and humour; of mocking those in power, not seeking to replace them.  That fits the role that Stewart and Colbert play the best. They are the court jesters at the palace of the real power players in America. Their job is to point out the hypocrisies of the great and the good, not to oust them.”  Why?  Because if Stewart and Colbert “ousted them”—whether they be liberal politicians or the mainstream media, which Stewart vaguely blamed as the problem-causer—they’d be out of jobs?

The real message of the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear was extremely political—in that “Two legs good, four legs better,” sort of way.  “We’ll keep telling you what to think, and we’ll even throw you a concert, get you a free bus ride, and let you smoke all the pot you want,” the message read.  “But here’s the deal: When we use your faces and voices, your talents and abilities to promote our political agenda, don’t talk back.”  Hence, unlike 8/28, Jon Stewart’s 10/30 may have entertained its audience, but it did not enable them to do much—except “take it down a notch.”

American politics was never meant to be this sedate.  Perhaps that is because, while examples do exist, there is nothing truly American about a political machine seeking to de-politicize an entire generation:

“For decades, the Soviet Union, under Stalin, put the brakes on world revolutions, subordinating all other struggles to the supreme goal of defending "socialism" in one country, and more specifically, the privileges of the Soviet bureaucracy. Under such conditions it was imperative to sedate the masses throughout the world and quell their revolutionary aspirations. By making dialectical, revolutionary transformations look as if they were something that happened to the masses rather than something they undertook, a subtle suggestion was being transmitted to the masses that they were to remain passive so that events could unfold according to their own logic, which, in fact, was aimed at maintaining the status quo.”

“Keep calm and carry on,” indeed.