America at 250: Where Has My Country Gone?

I remember back in 2009 watching a South Park episode called Dances with Smurfs.  In the episode, the troublemaker Eric Cartman becomes the reader of the elementary school announcements. He takes on the persona of political commentator Glenn Beck, and repeatedly invokes the What happened to my school? I don't consider myself a conservative or one to have blind patriotism, but that episode recently had me ask a similar question of What happened to my country? 

Sure, there are great things about the United States. The United States has the world's largest economy and is still the main superpower. Many of the world's top universities and largest companies are in the United States, and is still a hub for innovation. It is a country that was built on a creed and where your ancestry did not determine your lot in life. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are still faring well, certainly relative to Europe. But there is so much that has me concerned:

• Capitalism is declining in popularity while nearly two-thirds of Americans from the age of 18 to 29 who favor socialism. An economic system once considered synonymous with the American Dream is now viewed with skepticism. Instead, more of today's youth are attracted to an ideology that has been tried and has failed. 
• According to Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, the United States was faring better a couple of decades ago. A similar decline is on Fraser's Economic Freedom index. It shows that this country is less committed to the economic liberty that fueled generations of innovation, entrepreneurship, and prosperity. 
• There was a time where Congress cared about fiscal discipline, but the U.S. credit rating continues to spiral downwards with the debt-to-GDP ratio showing no signs of slowing down and shrinking.
• The Federal Reserve continues to have a large balance sheet, not to mention the U.S. dollar declining as a percent of global reserves. While the dollar is still dominant, it does signal concerns about the long-term fiscal and monetary foundations of the United States. 
• Homeownership and education are increasingly out of reach. Starting a family is more expensive, whether it is child care or providing a proper education. 
• More Americans think the First Amendment goes too far. The freedoms of religion, speech, protest, and press are civil liberties are not merely inconveniences that should be tolerated. They are some of the defining features of a free society. Cancel culture has only made this trend worse. It shows that this country is less tolerant of opposing ideas, beliefs, and ways of life that are not one’s own. 
• Populism has become popular on both sides of the political aisle. The Left promises protection from corporations, inequality, and unfairness. The Right promises protections from foreign competition, free trade, immigrants, and cultural change. Both increasingly believe that the government is the solution, not markets and civil society.  

This list is not about one president, one party, one election, one Supreme Court decision, or one public policy. It is the sad realization that over the course of my lifetime, the country I thought represented life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is disappearing bit by bit. America used to stand for many noble ideals. Here are some that come to mind:

• All people are created equal and are entitled to equal protection under the law. 
• With enough hard work and disciple, anyone can thrive, regardless of their station in life. 
• Markets generally work better than the government. 
• Capitalism provides prosperity and excessive government is anathema to the American spirit. 
• Government should be small and liberty is the default. 
• The extent to which government is in it is in our lives, it exists to serve the people, not the other way around. 
• A person's status and success should be determined by their merits, talents, and efforts, and not on their wealth, class, gender, or race. 
• Personal independence and individual accomplishments. 

What makes me sad is that many of the ideas that once made America exceptional now have to be defended in a way they never did before. The principles of liberty, limited government, free enterprise, and constitutional restraint have survived wars, depressions, and national crises over the past 250 years. I want those ideals to triumph both because they are morally just and because they create the most prosperity. Even so, I am less hopeful that those ideals can survive in this country for another 250 years. 

From DEI to DNA: "Heritage Americans" and the Rise of Right-Wing Identity Politics

For years, the concept of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, or DEI, has merited a ton of ire. It is a pseudo-moral position that reduces people to skin color and gender while treating ancestry like a social credit score. I have no love for DEI. I analyzed a study showing how DEI increases racial tension, hostility, and authoritarian tendencies. In pursuit of DEI, much of the political Left has abandoned colorblindness, embraced the dubious Critical Race Theory, and obsessed over race to the point where "anti-racism" has become a form of racism that has set U.S. racial relations back at least 65 years. DEI is illiberal, racist, and fundamentally at odds with a democratic, pluralistic society that values freedom. On this point, those on the Right were correct, particularly Matt Walsh with his documentary Am I Racist? (see my two-parter on his documentary here and here).

In a twist of irony, those on the Far Right have decided that the issue with DEI was not identity politics itself, but the "wrong identities." They fell in love with the idea, rebranded it as "Heritage American," and declared themselves the most oppressed people in a society where they have historically dominated. For those who do not know, a "Heritage American" is someone on the Far Right that defines being "authentically American" based on ancestry (typically privileging older Anglo-Protestant lineages), rather than civic allegiance or shared political ideals. This term functions as a gatekeeping tool, signaling who "counts" as genuinely American while excluding immigrants, people of color, and others whose families arrived to the United States more recently. 

Tucker Carlson has engaged with guests on Heritage Americans on his show, thereby giving the idea more traction in mainstream conservative circles beyond the fringe. I saw political commentator Brad Polumbo broadcast an episode on Nick Fuentes deriding Vivek Ramaswamy for his ancestry (and doing so in light of Ramaswamy's gubernatorial race in Ohio), which is what prompted me to write this piece. As a member of the Sons of the American Revolution, whose ancestors actually fought in the American Revolution, I find the concept of "Heritage American" to be as ridiculous as it is un-American. 

Virtue Signaling: Gender & Race versus Genealogy 

As Cato Institute scholar Alex Nowrasteh pointed out in his piece on Heritage Americans, many political organizations on the Far Left tore themselves apart by arguing who had greater victimhood status. On the Far Left, status is measured by how much oppression you can cite, document, or perform. On the Far Right, the same obsession with identity politics plays out. Instead of who is more oppressed, the Far Right measures "authenticity" by ancestry, colonial participation, and military lineage. Much like the DEI crowd argued over whose experience is more valid, Heritage Americans argue over whose family tree lends them the most credibility. 

It gets at a delicious irony, and not simply because both the Heritage Americans and the DEI crowd have the same collectivist mindset in which special privileges are based on inherited characteristics. The same people who had been wagging their finger at transgender people or nonbinary people for "playing dress-up" now indulge in historical cosplay. Instead of gender-reassignment surgery or preferred pronouns, the Heritage American props are great-great-great-great grandfathers, colonial muskets, and Civil War enlistment records. Whether in victimhood points or ancestry points, they are both forms of virtue-signaling theatrics that try to prove who matters the most. 

American Identity Is Built on a Creed, Not Bloodline

In Europe, standing and socioeconomic status in society were based on one's family tree. Now some Far Right-wingers want to impose European-style ancestry tests into U.S. patriotism, one that would have the Founding Fathers rolling in their graves. The Founding Fathers envisioned a nation of ideas and individualism, not a lineage fan club.

The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." The American Dream is not mean for those who had a better pedigree, but all individuals. The Constitution says "We, the people," not "we, the people with older birth certificates." The American government is grounded in a universal political collective, not a bloodline group. The phrase E pluribus unum has been part of the U.S. seal since 1782. The phrase in Latin means "from many, one," not "from many, but we really only mean those whose ancestors have been here long enough." 

My ancestors enlisted in the Continental Army to do battle against the British Empire that was oppressing them. They fought and died for a country where citizens can be united by liberty, equality, and rule of law, where citizens are judged by the commitment to these principles instead of bloodline, genealogy, or ancestry. Apparently, the notion that American identity is civic (and not genealogical) has been conveniently overlooked in the Heritage Americans' version of "history."

Americans Speak: Principles Over Pedigree

It is not only the Founding Fathers who held the view that American identity is not based on heritage. As a recent YouGov poll asking about "what makes someone American," look at the results below to see what ranks at the top and what is at the bottom. Having many generations of American ancestors and having American parents are towards the bottom of the list. At the top of the ranking are obeying U.S. laws, supporting the U.S. Constitution, and believing in the principles of the Declaration of Independence. In other words, American identity for the vast majority of Americans is creedal. 

Postscript: Patriotism Is Not Hereditary

At its core, American identity was never meant to be a family tree competition. America is neither a race nor a bloodline. The fact that American identity is based on liberty, equality, and rule of law instead of the European notion of genealogy is one of the major facets that makes America exceptional. E pluribus unum was not a slogan for those with the proper pedigree. It was for any citizen willing to uphold those ideals. This creed is what allowed the United States to thrive, to welcome immigrants, and adapt across cultures over time, making it unique in human history. To quote Capitalism Magazine, "Those who don't understand this don't understand America, regardless of how many generations their families have been here."

Heritage Americans may have a fantasy about fighting in the American Revolution or a nostalgia for "a better time," but none of that changes the fact that the strength of the United States has been civic, not genealogical. Even if a small minority believes in this genealogical gatekeeping, it risks shaping public policy in ways that ignore the civic principles that define what the United States of America has been throughout its history. The fact that Ramaswamy had to repudiate the idea at a Turning Point USA's America Fest, an event full of conservative activists and leaders of all places, late last year says that the Right itself is at a turning point. Will the political Right head in a direction where being American is treated as an ethnic identity or one based on the ideals of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? 

I want America to remain a nation of ideals and a creed, not a reenactment of a colonial family reunion. Patriotism is not inherited, and the notion that one can be an American either through being born in the United States or through a naturalization process helps make the United States a shining city on a hill. While some might clutch muskets in one hand and pearls in the other, the vast majority of Americans understand that being American is not about where your ancestors are from, but the principles you embrace. 

Making English an Official Language of the United States Is Unnecessary

This past Saturday, President Trump signed an executive order designating English as the sole official language of the United States. According to the executive order, Trump would like to "promote unity, cultivate a shared culture for all citizens, ensure consistency in government operations, and create a pathway to civic engagement." Reading this executive order, I have to question the necessity of this executive order. 

First and foremost, this is the first time in over two centuries that the United States has had an official language on the federal level. Trump's slogan since he ran for President in 2016 has been "Make Great America Great." If Trump wants to make America great again, that would mean that there was a previous time America was great. Guess what? During that first time America was great, English was not an official language of the United States. 

Although the Constitution and Declaration were written in the English language, the Founding Fathers did not see a need to declare English as the official language. Yes, English has been the de facto primary language of American society. However, America's economy grew to the point of having the world's largest economy. America became a haven for immigrants seeking a better life. Not only did America become synonymous with the "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" or a "shining city on a hill," but America ascended to become a player on the global stage and a superpower. It did all of that without English being an official language of the country. So why do we need one now?

Second, the English language is not under threat. There are 1.5 billion English speakers on the planet, thereby making it the most spoken language in the world. Over three-quarters of Americans already exclusively speak English in the home (Census Bureau). Yes, Spanish is spoken by 42-plus-million Americans and rising. It is also true that third- or higher-generation Latino-Americans are much less likely to speak Spanish than their first-generation counterparts (Pew Research). Immigrants do not need an official language to realize that English is the de facto language and not knowing English while living in the United States makes life that much more difficult. English is not going anywhere.

One could argue that most other nations have an official language. However, I would point out that those nations are not automatically stable simply because they have an official language. I would not exactly consider such nations as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, or Yemen to be stable or unified countries, even though they all have official languages. There are also countries that have multiple official languages, such as Belgium, Canada, Finland, India, Luxembourg, New Zealand, the Philippines, and Switzerland. Conversely, Argentina, Australia, Japan, Mexico, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom do not have official languages. Essentially, declaring a sole de jure official language does not ensure the unity Trump thinks it does. There are much more significant factors playing into the present divisiveness of the United States. 

I would contend not having an official language is a reflection of what historically has made America great. We do not need an official language or religion because it reflects not only the diversity of this nation (350 languages spoken in the United States and counting), but also that the American Dream is based on the freedom to choose how to live our lives, including which language or languages to speak. Freedom of speech under the First Amendment includes being able to speak in whichever language you would like. Instead of respecting citizens' constitutional rights to self-express in a language other than English, Trump has participated in some serious right-winged virtue signaling, time which could have been spent focusing on more pressing matters. 

Trump's Mass Deportation Idea Is As Massively Lousy As When He First Proposed It, If Not More So

There has been no shortage of terrible policy ideas to criticize and scrutinize during this presidential election cycle. Vice President Harris wants to implement such inane ideas as taxing unrealized capital gains and price controls on groceries. Trump has cranked out multiple absurd ideas, including, but not limited to, absurdly high tariffs and a temporary credit card interest rate cap. Today, I would like to cover one of Trump's longest-standing policy proposals: mass deportation. It is long-standing enough where I criticized the idea back in 2015. I did not like the idea back then and I certainly do not like it now. Here is why I think it is a terrible idea. 

Mass deportation is costly. There is the matter of how much this would cost. Think about what would go into enforcement. The government would need to identify, locate, detain, and legally process, and then remove 11 million unauthorized workers. Then there is the matter of creating and expanding upon detention facilities, courtrooms, and other infrastructure, not to mention hiring additional personnel. According to the American Immigration Council's October 2024 study on Trump's deportation plan, that would cost an estimated $967.9 billion over the next decade. 

Mass deportation would harm the U.S. economy. Immigrants are a net gain for the economy, and yes, that includes low-skill immigrants. Aside from the labor they provide, undocumented immigrants pay about $100 billion in taxes annually. Also, as this policy analysis from the Brookings Institution points out, unauthorized immigrants typically take different jobs from low-skilled U.S.-born labor (e.g., housekeeping, construction, caregivers), not to mention contribute to the long-term fiscal health of the U.S. 

As such, removing these laborers that are positively contributing to the economy would harm the economy, a concept I explored earlier this month with the housing construction market. The Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) found that deporting 8.3 million unauthorized workers would brings the GDP to be at 7.4 percent below the baseline by 2028. The Wharton School of Business, which is the premiere business school in the U.S., similarly estimated a negative trend regarding GDP: a reduction of GDP per capita by one percent between now and 2050. 

PIIE also found that deportation would decrease the number of employee hours worked by 6.7 percent. That makes sense, especially since deportation has been shown to lower the employment and hourly wages of U.S.-born citizens because of an increase in labor costs and reduction of local consumption (East et al., 2023).

Mass deportation would not solve crime-related issues. During the Vice Presidential debates, J.D. Vance said that a Trump 47 administration would start by deporting the undocumented immigrants who are criminals. Trump also said he wants to target migrant criminal networks. The idea is that by deporting migrant criminals, it would lower the crime rates because there are fewer criminals. Forget for a moment that immigrants are 60 percent less likely to commit crimes than U.S.-born citizens (Abramitzky et al., 2023).

Theory gets in trouble with practice here because the U.S. government has already tried this before. Secure Communities was a program through Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that targeted unauthorized immigrants with the cooperation of law enforcement. A study from the Institute of Labor Economics found that the SC program did not reduce property or violent crime (Hines and Peri, 2019). Why would that be the case? Enforcing deportation is a labor-intensive endeavor. It does not make police more efficient in solving cases and it ties up resources that could be used to solve cases. 

Not only does deportation do nothing to lower crime rates, but it also exacerbates the victimization of Hispanics. Why? They are less likely to report crimes because there is lack of trust in law enforcement to do their job when the possibility of deportation is looming over their heads (Gonçalves et al., 2024). 

Mass deportation would violate a lot of civil rights, as well as destroy lives and erode civil society. This would destroy the lives of migrants and have migrants that have yet to be detained live in a climate of fear. As for the Constitution, it does not take much to see how much abuse of Fourth Amendment and Sixth Amendment constitutional rights would take place if Trump were given the green light to deport immigrants. 

Worksites, immigrant neighborhoods, and Catholic churches would be raided. The amount of surveillance to carry this out would be staggering. Police officers knocking on doors at the middle of the night would be reminiscent of the Stalinist regime. In the meantime, detaining Latino migrants would come with human rights abuses that FDR committed against Japanese-Americans during World War II. I would be worried about the detainees in detention camps. As a September 2024 report from the Office of Inspector General already lays out, ICE already has issues being able to "maintain a safe and secure environment for staff and detainees."  

If you look at history and such examples as Argentina in the 1970s, the Pinochet regime in Chile, or Stalinist Russia, detaining and deporting people is not the hallmark of a free society, but of an authoritarian one. 

What is the likelihood this would actually happen? On the one hand, Trump talked a big game about deportation for his first term but did not carry it out. 

On the other hand, Trump is better poised to implement mass deportation should he be elected. For one, he appointed 245 judges during his first term, thereby being fewer legal obstacles. Two, this idea is more popular than I thought. According to a U.S. Today/Suffolk University poll conducted earlier this month, 45 percent of American support the idea of mass deportation. 

On the other other hand, our immigration system is already dealing with considerable backlog. Going door-to-door to detain people is labor-intensive. It is not something our current immigration system can handle and would require cooperation from state and local police, which is not a given. Plus, it would require cooperation from the migrants' native countries, which is tenuous at best. 

Postscript. From a political lens, it makes sense why this is popular. People are getting fed up with what is taking place on the U.S.-Mexico border, not to mention how endemic and normalized crime has become. From a policy lens, deportation makes zero sense. Deportation is a costly endeavor that will harm the economy (including U.S.-born workers) while doing nothing to lower crime. Meanwhile, the U.S. government would have to trample constitutional rights and ruin millions of lives in the process. It is not only anti-immigrant, but anti-American.

It would take a lot of violence, force, and taxpayer dollars to make this a reality. Why should we deport largely peaceful, non-violent, hard-working people who are contributing to the economy and paying taxes? Why create a culture of distrust, paranoia, and division? Why pay so much money and derive no benefit? I agree that this country could use considerable immigration reform, but mass deportation is not the answer. For all of our sakes, I hope that this policy proposal is nothing more than a campaign gimmick and not a reality in which this country becomes more despotic and tyrannical, a prospect that would have the Founding Fathers rolling in their graves. 

Using Race-Based College Admissions Is Morally Egregious and Nonsensical

Earlier this week, we celebrated the Fourth of July, which commemorates the day that the Declaration of Independence was ratified. A major part of the Declaration of Independence is the idea that "all men are created equal" and that all people are endowed with such "unalienable rights" as life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court brought us one step closer to that ideal by striking down race-conscious college admissions in the case of Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. This case not only reaffirms that two wrongs do not make a right, but also that the Fourteenth Amendment means "prohibiting racial discrimination in all but the narrowest circumstances, even when such discrimination is done in service of an otherwise 'noble' goal."

My opposition to affirmative action is nothing new and it still stands even after this latest Supreme Court ruling. When it began in the 1960s, affirmative action was meant to grant special consideration to historically excluded groups, particularly African-Americans and women. The purpose of affirmative action has been to increase employment and education opportunities for these historically underrepresented demographic groups. 

The problem for proponents is that they think they are ending discrimination when affirmative action itself is a form of discrimination. To quote Ibram X. Kendi, "the only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." The problem with Kendi and this thought process of other affirmative action proponents is that it would be an endless cycle of discrimination. Affirmative action does not eliminate or lessen racial discrimination, but serves to perpetuate it.

As Chief Justice John Roberts brought up in his majority opinion, "the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual, not on the basis of race." Thankfully, most Americans can see why affirmative action is morally problematic, even if university admissions officers cannot. The ideal of equal treatment is still held by Americans of all races. According to the most recent Pew Research polling data (see below), most Americans do not believe race or ethnicity should be a factor in college admissions decisions, and that includes 59 percent of African-Americans. It is a little more divided with selective colleges specifically (see here), but the general finding remains the same: most Americans do not care for race being used as a factor in college admissions. 

One of the other reasons I do not care for affirmative action is because the idea of using race as a basis for college admissions is that upon examination, it is as absurd as it is arbitrary. Justice Neil Gorsuch does a fine job illustrating the inchoate nature of these so-called racial categories in his concurring opinion in the ruling:

These classifications rest on incoherent stereotypes. Take the 'Asian' category. It sweeps into one pile East Asians (e.g., Chinese, Korean, Japanese) and South Asians (e.g., Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi), even though together they constitute about 60 % of the world's population...This agglomeration of so many people paves over countless differences in 'language,' 'culture,' and historical experience.

Gorsuch goes through this analysis for Hispanic, White, and Black. I covered the "White" category when refuting the ridiculous notion of "white culture", so need to do that here. I will provide Gorsuch's analysis on the ridiculousness of the category of "Black":

'The category of' 'Black or African American' covers everyone from a descendant of enslaved persons who grew up poor in the rural South, to a first-generation child of wealthy Nigerian immigrants, to a Black-identifying applicant with multiracial ancestry whose family lives in a typical American suburb.'

This illogic manifests in another way. To quote Gorsuch again, "If anything attempts to divide us all up into a handful of groups have become only more incoherent with time. American families have become increasingly multicultural, a fact that has led to unseemly disputes doubt whether someone is really a member of a certain racial or ethnic group." These crazily broad categorizations used for race similarly shows the illogic of the argument for reparations. 

It also brings up another question of what constitutes an adequate level of diversity: "Should universities be racially representative of their states, their nations, perhaps even the globe? In practical terms, it is a codeword for treating people according to the color of their skin rather than the content of their character."  As the libertarian Cato Institute rightly points out, "the diversity rationale is inherently stereotypical because it assumes that students brings something to the table by virtue of their race alone." And how do we measure diversity? The majority opinion illustrates this point: 

"At the outset, it is unclear how courts are supposed to measure any of these [diversity] goals. How is a court to know whether leaders have been adequately trained; whether the exchange of ideas is robust; or whether new knowledge is being developed? Even if these goals could somehow be measured, moreover, how is a court to know when they have been reached, and when the perilous remedy of racial preferences may cease?"

As Justice Thomas put it, "As she [Justice Jackson] sees it, we are all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society, with the original sin of slavery and the historical subjugation of black Americans still determining our lives today." The use of statistical disparities is the weak argument that Justice Jackson uses in her dissent. The problem is, much like I brought up last May, that the existence of disparity does not automatically mean racism or discrimination. Plus, as Justice Thomas rightly illustrates, what schools cannot do is "use the applicant's skin color as a heuristic, assuming that because the applicant checks the box for 'black' he therefore conforms to the university's monolithic and reductionist view of an abstract, average black person."

In other words, assuming that individuals are primarily or solely their skin color is not only untrue, it is racist to generalize individuals at that level. The Supreme Court was correct in ruling that affirmative action could not be justified on logical or ethical terms. As we will see in my upcoming piece, affirmative action does not a have public policy justification either.

A Fourth of July Reflection on Libertarianism and American Patriotism

Patriotism is one of those sentiments that makes libertarians such as myself weary. Patriotism has been abused and misused for ultra-nationalistic ends, whether we look back at World War Two or see the bigotry and xenophobia ultra-Right political parties espouse. In the vast majority of cases, you won't see American patriotism go to those extremes, but at the same time, it makes me shudder how patriotism can be and is used to exploit the public into unquestionably pledging allegiance to a nation, regardless of how much it screws up. Is unwavering loyalty to a nation-state true patriotism? Can one question their nation's course of action while still maintaining a sense of patriotism? These are questions I hope to answer today.

Patriotism is one of those difficult things to define because its meaning can change from culture to culture, not to mention that those of different political ideologies view the idea of patriotism differently. Etymologically speaking, the word "patriot" comes from the Latin word patriota (fellow countryman) and the Greek word πατρίς (country). Even with the origin of the word established, the philosophical debates behind what patriotism emerge. The Cato Institute actually provides a lively debate on the topic here.

"Love for one's country" is too simple of a meaning. What exactly are we loving in the first place? The physical land? The people? The politicians? And how do we define love? People can do silly things in the name of love, much like countries can do silly things in the name of national interest. How do we show love for our country? Does flying a flag outside of your house or posting some seemingly wholehearted Facebook status count as patriotism? Does one have to go as far as serving in the military or actively participating in civic duty in order to be considered a true patriot?

I feel like I need to go back to what one is loving. I don't think it's a piece of land that one is supposed to love. At least in an American context, true patriotism is about loving the ideas upon which this country was founded. One of the things that makes the United States so atypical in terms of how nations were formed is that this country was built on an idea of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. There is a sense of rugged individualism and freedom to determine one's own destiny that was decidedly not in the framework of the European aristocracy that controlled 99.9999% of the wealth up until pre-modern times. America is about the idea of becoming your own person and pursuing your own dreams. That is why the definition of American is minimalist in comparison to other nationalities. All you have to do is either be born in the United States or go through the naturalization process. Beyond that, it is primarily your destiny to become the person you want to be. With this liberty, there are many Americas: Jewish America, black America, Hispanic America, gay America, Catholic America, hippy America, atheistic America, the America for white, heterosexual, Christian Republican males.....I can go on, but the point is that these sub-cultures exist because multiple groups can exist in tolerance and plurality. Think of America more as a tossed salad than a melting pot.

Is America perfect? Much like any other nation-state, the answer is "no" because humans are definitionally fallible. However, the fact that we strive closer and closer to an ideal, even if we never fully achieve it, is what I think makes for truer patriotism than mindlessly waving a flag, barbecuing, and wearing red, white, and blue on the Fourth of July. Samuel Johnson famously called patriotism "the last refuge of a scoundrel," but when read in context, Johnson was making a distinction between vicious and virtuous forms of patriotism.

For those who have read my blog, although it covers many topics, it serves as an ode to criticizing American public policy. Does this mean that I hate America? Absolutely not! As I already pointed out, it is still flawed because fallible human beings are in charge of governance. If you love something, you want it to grow and be the best it can be. That is at least part of the reason why my blogging criticizes America. It's because I love a country that, in spite of its flaws, offers freedom of religion unparalleled to any other country. It has a relatively free economy and provides opportunities to grow that did not exist for much history, and do not exist for most of the world. Although I might complain about American public policy, I also try to at least offer solutions to make it better. One can criticize out of love. As the American Enterprise Institute points out, 65 percent of Americans think this country is seriously on the wrong track, yet 83 percent of Americans still think this is the best country in which to live.

There's no contradiction between patriotism and criticism.  As a libertarian, I criticize both the encroachments and imperfections of the American government while simultaneously celebrating the freedoms this country has to offer. As my former professor put it, "the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution in the hopes that America would be a libertarian playground." My patriotism is not a sentiment that shuts my brain off when someone lobs the smallest of criticisms of America. I don't suffer from disillusionments simply because America needs to work on certain areas of improvement. I want to live in a land of the free. I want to see America live up to that classically liberal idea. If wanting to see my country truly become the land of free makes me a patriot, then I guess I'm a patriot.

Happy Fourth of July!

Tiananmen at 25: The More It Changes, The More It Stays the Same

June 4, 1989. It was a moment that tried to help define modern-day China. On this day, a bunch of student-led demonstrations, known as 六四事件 (Tiananmen Square protests), protesting the anti-democratic government of the People's Republic of China. The students were met with martial force, which resulted in tens of deaths and a multitude of injuries. It received much media coverage and was a moment to make it in the history books. The question I have to ask is whether 六四事件 set China on a course towards respect of human rights or if Tiananmen was merely continuing its shoddy human rights record.

With something as momentous as 六四事件, one would have expected significant reforms in China. When contrasting with something like Poland's recent 25th anniversary of being free from Communist Russia, you have to start wondering just how much progress China has made. Is Poland perfect in its human rights and civil liberties? What country is? But at least I can say to myself that Poland has made significant reforms and is heading in the right direction. In preparation for the 25th anniversary of Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government had enough security around to Tiananmen Square to make sure that any attempts to commemorate the protests were quashed. If this week were a reminder of anything, it is that China is still a police state hellbent on censorship. Even the Internet "protesting" and demonstrations that existed for the 25th anniversary had to be exceptionally clandestine. But it's more than cracking down on an anniversary that was symbolic of the Chinese cry for democratization. It was a wake-up call as to how little has changed since June 4, 1989.

The fact that the  中国共产党 (Chinese Communist Party) still maintains its one party-grip on the political system and electoral process says something right there. The censorship of the Internet is reflective of China having one of the world's most restrictive media environments. With the persecution of Tibetan Buddhists, Muslim Uyghyrs, and the Falun Gong (法轮大法), one can hardly tout religious freedom in China. In spite of the tens of thousands of protests that have taken place in China since 1989, the police does a fine job of suppressing the outcry. And forget anything about a fair trial or due process of the law in China because it only exists if you are high enough in the politburo. The list of egregiousness of human rights and civil liberty violations in China seems immeasurable, which is why I will stop here.

China has made considerable progress in the economic realm. China is hardly a capitalist haven, but the fact that it has liberalized its economy from the clutches of communism has improved the lives of many in China since 1978. However, it's not enough. I am not arguing that economic freedom is unimportant, but rather that progress in human rights needs to be comparable to that in economic progress. Although economic reform is a prerequisite for political reform, if China reminds us of anything, it is that political reform is not an inevitable result of economic liberalization.

Looking at the United States in contradistinction to China, this anniversary has also been a reminder as to how lucky I am to live in a country such as the United States. Much like any other country, the United States is imperfect in the implementation of its policies, although much less so than a place like China. Not only can I express disagreement and constructive criticism about what the government does in this country, but I can do so without worrying that I will end up in prison simply for disagreeing. We have a country that has an overall respect for freedom of religion, association, speech, and press. I hope that it doesn't take China another 25 years to realize that allowing for such freedoms is not a hindrance, but rather an advancement of society.

Is America the Greatest Nation on Earth?

I find that asking whether America is the greatest nation on Earth during the Fourth of July season is a most appropriate topic question.  When is a better time to ask it than when our awareness of our nation's ideals is most heightened with the patriotic fervor of the holiday spirit?  If you haven't noticed, I have been using Pew Center polls a lot lately, and I do so for two reasons.  One is that the Pew Center has no discernible bias, something that I cannot say for just about every other media outlet in the nation.  My second reason is that it the intrigue of the frequency in which many of the opinions of those who are polled do not jive with reality.  I would consider this drôle if it were not for the fact that these people actually have clout in public policy.

That set aside, I was taking a look at a recent poll done that asked the question at hand: Is America the greatest nation on Earth?  Even in spite of post-9-11 patriotism, I was surprised to see the results of the poll.  A majority (53%) believe that America is one of the greatest nations, but is by no means superior.  I find the question to be problematic for a couple of reasons.  The first is that politics gets in the way.  The Far Right is obsessed with an unwavering sense of "American exceptionalism," whereas the Far Left is hung up on blaming America for everything.  The second, and by far more important reason, is that the question is so loaded that it's not even funny.

"I love my country" is an emotion.  Every country has their patriots, and each country's patriots will say their respective nation is the greatest on Earth.  That's the very essence of pride.  However, pride is not an objective measurement of greatness.  That being the case, how can we measure America's greatness?  The answer is not simple simply because we would need to measure multiple factors that play a role in answering that question.  Let's take a look:

• Military/Defense: America is the most technologically advanced military in the world.  America's military prowess is well-known.  Also, in absolute dollars, the US spends $607B (2008 figures), more than any other nation, although that is a smaller portion of our GDP than one would think.  "Don't mess with the U.S." still rings true as America has the most powerful military on the planet.  In terms of spending and being involved in pointless endeavors such as Afghanistan, debate on military efficacy should be an ongoing process as it would be great to see the American military spend as little as possible while being efficient in terms of accomplishing its goals.
• Economic Freedom: Co-sponsored by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, the Economic Freedom Index measures economic freedom throughout the world.  Even though economic freedom has dropped during the Obama administration, America is still measured to have well-above average economic freedom.
• Economy: In spite of the recession, America has the largest GDP, and largest GDP per capita based on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP).  We have a convoluted, progressive tax system that stymies economic growth. We are also dealing with a massive debt on which we are having a hard time paying back.  Entitlement spending and heading towards the status of a welfare state does not help with any of this.  A reversal of this trend would help ensure that America's economic growth doesn't end up like that of the European Union.           
• Education: For being a developed nation that is allegedly the "greatest nation on Earth," I find the education system in this country to be mediocre at best, and at worst, a sad state of affairs if we are to lead the world in a forward direction this century.  According to the Programme of International Student Assessment (PISA), which evaluates academic progress of fifteen-year old students worldwide, the scores of American students did not exceed those of many of the other developed nations.  Even though the expenditures for K-12 schools have more than tripled (inflation-adjusted), SAT test scores have received moderate increases.  Although this can be a much longer commentary,  bloated school budgets, teacher unionism that doesn't incentivize teachers to improve their teaching methods, the Department of Education, and dumbing down the curriculum (both in K-12 and many undergraduate colleges) all further erode the education system in this country.        
• Religious Freedom: It was the theme for my blog entry for last year's Fourth of July.  I am so grateful that as a Jew, I have such ability to practice Judaism.  Religious freedom is one of those impetuses that brought the colonialists to America.  I am glad to see that America has done a superb job at maintaining religious freedom that has been unprecedented in the Diaspora.
• Health Care: The answer depends on whether you want to focus on equity (i.e., universal access) like the Left or overall quality like the Right does.  At best, one could argue that countries have socialized health care have immediate access to certain prescriptions and other basic forms of health care.  As for more complicated medical procedures, that's another story.  Do you want to be waiting in line for months for a live-saving procedure like they do in Canada,  or do you want to pay a bit more for quality that could mean the difference between life and death?  Last time I checked, a long waiting line is not access to health care.  Also, America has the greatest medical research facilities in the world, which means access to more complicated procedures.  This means increased prices in health care costs, which is why America has the highest health care costs in the world (#1 in absolute dollars and #2 in terms of percentage of GDP.....East Timor is #1).  Proponents of socialized health care gripe because increased costs don't lead to increased life expectancy.  That would be more due to the obesity brought on by the American lifestyle than it is a statement of the quality of American health care.  Even though Medicare and Medicaid dominate a good percentage of the medical industry, whatever has been untouched is still of great quality. Our health care system is by no means perfect, and there are viable solutions that don't involve aggrandizement of Big Government. However, I can guarantee that if Obamacare actually becomes law in 2014, we will be having a completely different discussion about the overall quality of American health care, one that will not be by any means flattering.
• Immigration: The United States has the largest net migration on the face of this planet.  What does that indicate?  There is a much larger flux of people wanting to get into the United States rather than leaving it.  It would indicate that there is something wonderful about America that would cause such a flux.  Even though America is great at attracting immigrants to this nation, there are improvements that can be made in our immigration policy to make it more comprehensive than "guard the borders" to account for the complexities of America's immigration situation.  Canada's immigration policy would be a good model for improvement.    
• Civil Liberties: Even though this country has a ways to in terms of offering civil rights to homosexuals, not to mention the Patriot Act or Real ID Act, the United States is overall sound when it comes to civil rights.  As Freedom House illustrates, America has a constitutionally protected free press, a good freedom of assembly, a high level of autonomy, women's rights, and even more notably, high levels of access to economic and social advancement.  In short, we have some of the best civil rights offered on this planet.        

Postscript: Did this help figure out whether America is the greatest nation on Earth?  It depends.  Do you prefer to emphasize America's strengths or weaknesses?  Which indicator(s) do you find to be more important?  It should go without saying that America is not without problems.  We're a nation composed of human being who are, by definition, imperfect.  As such, we're bound to have problems.  Regardless of how you view the overall direction of America, let's do two things today.  Take pride in that which America excels.  But let's also realize what America needs to focus on so that as a nation, we can work towards making this country better than it already is.

Health Care Is Not A Right

It's amazing how the Left defines everything they advocate for in terms of rights. In the past, they have griped about the right to a living wage and welfare. Recently, it has been about the "right" of collective bargaining. After one year since Obamacare had been passed by Congress, now the Left, as always, is whining about how health care is a right. Much of the Left's complaints are rooted in their self-entitlement mentality. Ideally, the state would provide the people's needs, a trend which we are regrettably seeing in the European Union. I'll leave the ideological discord at that for the time being.

Much like I did with collective bargaining a few weeks back, I would like to differentiate between a real right and a false right. This time, I want to view it in terms of the government's role in respect to those rights. The government is either the guarantor or the protector of rights. If the government is the guarantor, you can guarantee that the government has the ability to take away those rights just as easily as they granted them. That has been the story of many citizen's rights throughout history. When the government is the guarantor, it would be significantly more accurate to state that they are not so much rights as they are privileges.

If, on the other hand, the government were the protector of rights, that brings us in the realm of natural rights. If natural rights are fundamental, then you cannot have a conflict between one's fundamental rights and another's fundamental rights. If you did, then you would be dealing with a case of misinterpretation of those rights.

What does this mean in terms of health care? You have the right to choose to exercise. You have the right to smoke two packs a day if you want. You have the right drink as much alcohol as you want and participate in other high-risk activities, provided that you are not harming others in the process. You have the right to have a diet that consists of Big Macs, Twinkies, and other processed foods, thereby becoming obese in the process.  I would deem it really, really moronic to damage your body in such ways.  However, I find the great thing about America, or at least the nostalgic version that many Americans have, is that we have freedom.  We have the freedom to choose success and happiness.  We have the freedom to choose self-destructive, idiotic behavior.  We have the freedom to choose something in the middle.  It is the American Dream to make that choice for ourselves.

The moment when stupid choices have spillover effects on others is when I have a problem with an American's stupidity. Joe Schmo, you can smoke two packs a day for all I care.  But don't expect me and every other American to pay taxes via Obamacare to cover your treatment because you didn't care that smoking increases your chances of lung cancer.  If I do end up having to pay for it, then you violate the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of me and every taxpayer in this country.

The sad part of this whole debate is much of our health care problems could be prevented.  According to the CDC, one in five deaths is caused by smoking.  Much of the cardiovascular diseases, which is at a shocking statistic of 81 million Americans, could be easily prevented with good diet and healthy exercise.  Diabetes II, which is the prevalent type of diabetes, is also preventable with good diet. 

Although I can list more diseases, I wanted to amply prove that most health care issues are preventable.  This is important when considering the fact that increase in demand drives up the cost of a good; it's simple economics.  Therefore, your stupidity should have tangible costs (i.e., consequences).  That is all the more reason why health care should be treated as a good, not as a right.  If it were treated as a right, everyone would think that there is an unlimited supply, which would drive up the costs even more.  The result would be in a rationing of health care since there would not be enough doctors to see all the patients with their stupid and/or preventable maladies.  It would bring financial ruin to this country.  I'll let Harvard Economics Professor Jeffrey Miron explain why Obamacare, or any nationalized health care, is a bad idea:

American Jew: The Search for a Double Identity

This was my essay topic for when I took Intro to American Studies.  Based on Frederick Douglass' search for dual identity, I also searched for a dual identity, e.g., what it meant to be both American and Jewish.  I couldn't think of a better topic for the Fourth of July, a time of year in which the dual identity comes into tension. 

In order to discover whether the tension can be mitigated or eliminated, one has to ask what it means to be an American.  From the most narrow of definitions, an American is one who was either a) born in the United States, or b) you endure a lot of bureaucratic red tape, take the citizenship test, and become just as American as everybody else.  What makes a good American, or rather, made a good American, was being a WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant).  Up until about fifty to sixty years ago, Catholics, blacks, Hisapnics, and Jews were looked at as "less American" than their WASP counterparts.  The way in which America has evolved makes the question "what makes a good American" obsolete simply because there are multiple Americas.  I say that because the amount of sub-cultural groups in this country, whether they be based on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or even sexual orientation, force us to look at America in a way that is not homogeneous.  This means that the seemingly minimalist requirement of American citizenship is actually the definition of what an American is.

The implications this has for Jews is amazing because it means that you don't have to give up an iota of your Jewishness to be American.  Not only that, Jews should be proud of the fact that they have American citizenship.  I'm sure my Orthodox friends would like to remind me that we, as Jews, are still בגלות (in exile), that we are not in Israel.  Although I am not disputing the yearning to return to Israel, I will, however, say this.  You should still be thankful for all the religious freedom we have.  Think of Jews living in other nations throughout history.  If you chose any other given moment in Jewish history outside of Israel, I'm sure that you find that it was illegal to practice kashrut, circumcise your son, study Torah, or observe Shabbat.  Essentially, one who practiced Judaism was castigated in one way or the other, in a great deal of instances, with death.  America is the historical exception to that rule, and the fact that we have the ability to practice Judaism freely in America is truly something to be thankful for.  Not only should we be thankful for it, but all Jews should exercise that freedom to each individual's full potential.  May this be a day to realize how luck we Jews are to live in the land of the free and practice Judaism.

Happy Fourth of July and G-d Bless America!     

Wearing American Flags on Cinco de Mayo Causes Trouble

This past Cinco de Mayo, five students at Live Oaks High School, a predominantly Hispanic high school, decided to wear shirts with American flags.  Initially, the vice principal, who happened to be Hispanic, told he boys, one of them who happened to have Hispanic heritage, to turn their shirts inside out because they were "incendiary." The boys refused.  So what did the school officials decide to do? Send them home!

What do I find wrong with this whole scenario?  A violation of First Amendment rights, for starters.  If students of Mexican origin want to show Mexican pride, that's your prerogative.  But to force your pride onto somebody else like that is nothing short of the double standards that we see in affirmative action (better known as reverse discrimination) and any other politically correct, societal discourse in racism.

Second, I am willing to bet that most, if not all, of the students who were "offended" by these T-shirts were American citizens themselves.  Aside from the fact that they cannot distinguish between nationality and ethnicity, what it does is help divisiveness permeate throughout.  What do I mean by that?  By being "offended" and having their elders affirm their "right to be offended" (for the record, no such "right" exists in the Constitution), they inculcate into them that they're somehow not "American enough" or that being American is so tertiary to them that their being American is of no importance. Capriciously throwing the race card around and letting these students get away ultimately perpetuates the very "racial wars" about which they bemoan in the first place because what the Left (or Chicano groups) imply is that they are too emotionally fragile to maturely handle such issues, which is nothing more than a politically correct form of racism.

Finally, if a sizable ethnic minority were to pull this stunt in any other country, they would, at the least, be dismissed as unpatriotic ignoramuses, and at most, would be shot for treasonous behavior.  Obviously, this is akin to having the Hispanic population force Spanish on the rest of American society with bilingualism.  Even though I'm fluent in Spanish, I still get annoyed when I hear "Oprima número dos para español." But why would I be annoyed?  For one, although I recognize that America doesn't have an official language, I also recognize that the language that has been used throughout the American history for public interactions has overwhelmingly been English.  It is also annoying because it's a slap in the face of the host country.  Think of the example of the "boorish American tourist."  One of the main reasons that the American tourist is stereotypically considered boorish is because he never took the time to learn the language of the host country.  If 100,000 Americans moved to Argentina and demanded to the Argentinian government that everything be changed into English to better fit their needs, you can imagine the reaction.

When I taught ESL back in high school, I did meet Hispanics who genuinely wanted to learn the English language because they wanted to be able to interact in their host country.  Even though I recognize that there are many Hispanics that want to learn English because it will give them a socio-economic boost, I also recognize that a large minority (or even a slight majority) of Hispanics in this country expect to be linguistically coddled.  If you want to speak Spanish in your own home, watch Telemundo, and maintain your heritage, I am all for that!  Ethnic pride is great, and one of the great things about America is that we live in a nation in which we can respect other peoples' differences.  I can tell you that no nation in Europe has been able to foster such an open policy when it comes to diversity.  However, don't let that interfere with interacting with others in a civil manner.  So if you're Hispanic, and if having respect for America and those who decide to be patriotic is too difficult for you to handle, you can always take your Mexican pride and hightail it south of the border.

No Protestant on the Supreme Court Is OK

Our Supreme Court can be without a Protestant justice for the first time ever. And guess what? Most Americans don’t care. According to a Fox News poll, 70% couldn’t care less if the next nominee is a Protestant.

I find this to be a step in the right direction. Up until very recently in American history, Catholics and Jews were barred from noticable ascents to power and access to many societal institutions. Not only have we gotten past the “the only true American is a WASP” mentality, but we have also voiced that religious affiliation doesn’t matter for a Supreme Court nomination. Kudos to America for showing progress!

Tea Party 2010: A Look at the Future of America's Economy

Tea Parties are fun to go to, and that’s not just because you get to hang around like-minded people who wonder where their country went. It’s because when you talk with those at the rally, you get a better idea of what the American people want. No, these people were not political activists prior to this. About 99% of them are normal, everyday Americans who are feeling the repercussions of the erosion of their economic freedoms [the other 1% are political pundits such as myself]. This movement has nothing to do with racism or even social issues, for that matter. If you need proof of this, just look at this New York Times/CBS News poll that shows interesting findings, such as 57% of those in the Tea Party support legal recognition of same-sex unions [that breakdown being 16% for gay marriage and 41% for civil unions], about 65% agree on a degree of access to abortions, or that only 2% think that “moral values” are an important issue facing the country. If you are wondering what made the Top Four of the list of prioritization for Tea Party supporters, it was the economy (23%), jobs (22%), politicians/government (13%), and the budget deficit (11%).

Economic failure and governmental intrusion are very much on the forefront of the Tea Party Movement’s mind. One of the speakers at the rally last night was a doctor who was discussing, in detail, how ObamaCare’s price controls on insurance are going to greatly hinder doctors’ ability to treat their patients. A not-so-amusing anecdote he brought up was when Nancy Pelosi was being interviewed after the passing of the health care bill. A reporter asked her about the constitutionality of the bill. You want to know what her response was? It was “Are you serious?” I think that has to be my response to her idiotic response. The head of Congress has no respect for the Constitution, which means she has no respect for American jurisprudence. And she still holds a seat of such affluence?! And you wonder why Congress’ job approval rating is so low.

Idiocies from Congress set aside, people at the Tea Party Rally were just fed up with government intrusion.  If you think that economic freedoms aren’t important, think again! In more ways than one, your economic freedoms are your freedoms. If we continue going down this path of giving the government more regulatory powers over the economy, which, by the way, are not granted by the Constitution, you wouldn’t be able to buy property, buy the kind of car you like, eat whatever you want, have the thermostat set the way you like it, or to pursue the career of your choice.

The Founding Fathers were highly intuitive men, especially after experiencing governmental stifling of the American colonies. They knew that the best government was a limited one. At best, government was a necessary evil, and at worst, an intolerable one. As James Madison said best, “If people were angels, we would have no need for government.” Because of their intuition, the Founding Fathers gave the federal government a minimalist amount of power. I think just the actions of the Obama administration alone would cause the Founding Fathers to roll in their graves. Bailouts of the banks, a stimulus package which has been nothing but treif, a failed Cash-for-Clunkers program, and the recent overhaul of a sixth of our economy. What have the American people received in return? Increased unemployment, an economy showing no signs of recovery, and an ever-rising debt. That sounds like a fair trade-off. I guess that’s what Obama meant by hope and change!

And if you thought that wasn’t enough, guess what the federal government has in the works? A cap-and-tax bill along with a plan to add a value-added tax to the government's continuously burdensome taxation.

Whether it’s anthropogenic global warming, increasing regulatory oversight of the Federal Reserve, or the government telling citizens that they have to buy health insurance, our government is clearly forgetting about the concept of “we, the people.” Quite a few at the rally were putting emphasis on “working within the system” in order to bring constitutional integrity back, which means finding accountable people to run for office within the two-party system. Whether or not you agree with the Electoral College, or the status quo of the two-party system, one thing is for certain—the November elections will be a good indicator of the future of our political climate. We will be able to see if Tea Party politicians can keep their word to the people. We will see if “we, the people” truly are fed up with the government and their increasingly invasive laws and regulations. In short, we will see if America wants to maintain its exceptionalism or become a crippling, European-style welfare state.

Can a Jew Celebrate Thanksgiving?

Thanksgiving--one of those quintessentially American moments.  Having a huge meal featuring a turkey, having family over for a day, and being thankful for what you have.  It sounds magical and all, but can a Jew partake in this celebration?  Like any other halachic discussion, many factors need to be analyzed before coming to a final conclusion.  In this case, the three most important factors are the following: is Thanksgiving idolatry, is it an example of imitating Gentiles, and finally, where do we get the chuptzah to add holidays on the Jewish calendar?

Idolatry: It is the Second Commandment of the Decalogue (Exodus 20:3, Deut. 5:7).  Approximately ten percent of the 613 mitzvot have to do with idolatry!  Worshiping false deities is no small laughing matter in Judaism.  Not committing idolatry is so grave that in Jewish tradition, it is one of the three situations in which a Jew must give up his life (Sanhedrin 74a).  Needless to say, one has to be cautious with being idolatrous, and inquiring about Thanksgiving is no exception. The most objective way of coming up with an answer to this objection is to look at the history of Thanksgiving. Is it pagan or religious in its origin?  If yes, then it's forbidden.  If no, then it's permitted.  The origin of this holiday is when the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth in 1621.  The Pilgrims were thanking the Almighty for having the local Native Americans bring them a sufficient amount of food in a time of resource scarcity and poor weather conditions. Plus, if it were a strictly religious affair, the Pilgrims would have never invited "those heathen [fill in the blank with an obscenity]" to break bread. President George Washington made the first Thanksgiving Proclamation in 1789, albeit with Deist undertones.  Abraham Lincoln declared that the fourth Thursday of every November would be for Thanksgiving, although it was under the FDR administration that it was established as a federal holiday in 1941.  Since the Constitution has an amendment for the federal government not to establish religion, followed by the Fourtheenth Amendment extending that to state government, a declaration such as this cannot, by definition, be considered religious in nature.  That is bolstered by the fact that neither the Thanksgiving meal nor the American football games watched on that day can be considered religious in nature or origin.  Even R. Moshe Feinstein, z"tl, admits in his 1980 teshuva that Thanksgiving has no religious origins. In Igrot Moshe, YD 4:11, he states that even if some people throw in some religious ritual (i.e., a Grace before Meals with the word "Jesus" in it), it does not become prohibited.  Therefore, Thanksgiving cannot be considered an idolatrous practice.

Imitating the Gentile: Leviticus 18:3 states the prohibition of imitating Gentile customs.  What that means is up for debate, and I thank HaShem for Talmudic commentary because it helps define some of these questions.  According to Tosafot (Avodah Zara 11a), "imitating the Gentile" consists of two things:  idolatrous customs and foolish customs from the Gentile world, regardless of their origins. I previously discussed how Thanksgiving is not an idolatrous practice, so that eliminates the first category.  The second category is not so clear. The Vilna Gaon (YD 178:7) was ultra-stringent in his ruling when he stated that any custom without a Jewish basis should be avoided.  Rabbeinu Nissim's commentary, on the other hand, states that only the idolatrous customs are under consideration for Leviticus 18:3.  Even if they're apparently foolish, as long as they have a reasonable explanation, they are permissible.  The Rama (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 178:1) even agrees, and uses the example of a physician who wears a special garment to define himself as such.    The more lenient ruling, which has more pragmatism in light of the Rama's insight, would allow the celebration of Thanksgiving to be permissible.

A little more prodding into the customs themselves.  The first is the one of eating turkey.  It is believed that turkey being served at the first Thanksgiving meal is a myth.  If you take the middle ground approach of "stupid customs are out," then turkey has to go.  I'm vegetarian, so that facet is a moot point for me personally.  Family gatherings aren't pagan or religious in nature--it's what humans do.  And as for giving thanks, I'll elaborate on that in my final paragraph.

A Jewish Holiday?: Adding a holiday to the calendar is controversial enough when one considers a fully Jewish holiday such as Yom Ha'atzmaut. If Israeli Independence Day can cause this much tension, just think what kind of heated debate you can get into with adding a holiday with secular origins.  Thanksgiving status and origin bar it from ever becoming a religiously Jewish holiday.  The only exception, of course, would be if it became a [universal] minhag, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.  Therefore, it cannot be considered a religious obligation to celebrate it or put it on the Jewish calendar.  Since Thanksgiving has the status of permissibility, rather than obligation, Rabbi Yehuda Kerzl Henkin suggests that Thanksgiving be occasionally skipped (Benai Banim 2:30), just to reinforce that notion.  This accomodates Feinstein's middle-ground view, as well, since he prohibited the establishment of Thanksgiving as an obligation, while at the same time permitted its voluntary celebration.

What's a Jew to Do?:  Since it's not a religious obligation, not celebrating Thanksgiving wouldn't damper one's Yiddishkeit.  This affirmation makes it all the easier to say "Do what's within your comfort zone."  If you're not comfortable with it because you're worried about the slippery slope, then don't do it.  On the other hand, there is more than ample halachic permissibility to do so, as long as your mentality isn't "I'm doing it to keep up with the Joneses" or "It's a mitzvah to have turkey on the fourth Thursday of every November." (There's so much wrong with that latter statement, but I won't go into it)

As a Jew who tends towards inclusiveness, I would encourage that American Jews spend at least a few of these Thanksgiving Days celebrating.  I've heard the clever one-liner of "In Judaism, every day is a Thanksgiving Day."  I won't dispute that--observant Jews pray thrice daily to give thanks to HaShem, not to mention the myriad of other daily blessings in a Jew's life.  It seems pointless to have a day solely dedicated to giving thanks.  After all, shouldn't we have repentance on our minds daily?  Yet we have Yom Kippur built into our calendars.  Same goes with freedom and Pesach, as well as the joy of Torah and Simchat Torah.  Thanksgiving is a stop along the crazy road called life.  It's not merely a day off of work, although that is an added benefit.  The reason I voluntarily, rather than obligatorily, enjoy Thanksgiving is because I get to focus on an important middah--hakarat ha'tov, or gratitude.  I would love to go on and on about how wonderful Mussar is, especially in this context, but I just want to comment on the essence of gratitude in a Jewish context.  It is a cornerstone of Jewish thought and practice, so much so that a Jew is supposed to say one hundred blessings a day!  (That would be one blessing every 14.4 minutes)  Judaism is predicated on what HaShem provides for us, and that each day we should be thankful for all that He provides us.  It's no accident that if you forget to say a bracha (blessing) before eating food, it's as if you have stolen from the Almighty (Brachot 34a).  Without a sense of gratitude, one ultimately turns to idolatry and self-indulgence. 

One more point I would like to make: If there is any beautiful teaching I have learned from Chasidism, it is that things that are neither inherently evil nor holy, but are considered kelipat nogah (neutral non-holiness), have the potential to be used in the service of HaShem and elevated to level of holiness.  In its state of permisibility, I inherently view Thanksgiving Day, as celebrated in America, as kelipat nogah.  Here we have a secular celebration of giving thanks [to a "higher power"].  Rather than have scorn upon such a lenient ruling and dismiss Thanksgiving as pointless, I view it not only as an opportunity to fuse together secularism with Judaism, a concept that R. Samson Hirsch called 'Mensch-Yisrael,' but also to raise a religiously neutral moment and turn it into something holy.  Granted, I won't have a kosher turkey on my table, but I'll be sure that meatless slab of hickory-flavored ribs will be in accordance with Jewish dietary laws. As a follower of Mussar studies, I will focus on the middah of hakarat ha'tov and find ways in which I can be more thankful in the future.  I will take time out my day off to study the Talmud tractate of Brachot, or even pull out my siddur and analyze a few prayers.  Even from the viewpoint of being an American citizen, I will also be thankful that America is a great country simply because its Constitution has granted unprecedented freedom that has not been seen in the Diaspora.  In the past, circumcision and kosher slaughtering, just to name a couple of Jewish practices, have been outlawed.  But I thank HaShem that I live in a country that allows me to freely practice Judaism.

Overall, Thanksgiving Day for a Jew should be focus on how to make blessings and prayers a more intricate part of one's daily life.  It should be a day to realize all the blessings that are in one's life come from HaShem, and that we should be thankful for each and every one. 

יְבָרֶכְךָ יְהוָה, וְיִשְׁמְרֶךָ

יָאֵר יְהוָה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ, וִיחֻנֶּךָּ

יִשָּׂא יְהוָה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ, וְיָשֵׂם לְךָ שָׁלוֹם

"May HaShem bless you and watch over you.

May He shine His face toward you and show you favor.

May He be favorably disposed toward you, and may He grant you peace."

A Happy and Meaningful Thanksgiving to All!

11/16 Hodgepodge

- Contrary to popular belief, it turns out that less than 40% of American energy comes from oil.  Although it wins in terms of plurality, we should focus our efforts on other places, such as nuclear power, or stop putting limits on off-shore drilling for oil or extraction of natural gas.

- Libertarian commentator Steve Chapman wrote an article entitled "Gay Marriage Lost, But It's Not Losing."  Chapman highlights the increasingly majority-based support for civil unions, most notably using the recent victory for the gay rights movement in Washington state as proof.  Chapman concludes his article with "Many gay-rights advocates reject anything short of full access to marriage as a disgraceful revival of the old "separate but equal" policy -- which was anything but equal for African-Americans. But you don't get across a broad river in a single leap. You get there by building a bridge that allows you to travel across one step at a time.  As a destination, civil unions leave a lot to be desired. But as an avenue, they're hard to beat."  Funny how I blogged on this issue and came to the same conclusion regarding civil unions.

-How low can can a man go?  That's what I had to ask with regards to Obama and his latest trip to Japan.  Apparently, the way he bowed to the Japanese emperor caused a bit of a ruckus.  Not only did the emperor not reciprocate, but if you look at American dignitaries in the past, they haven't treated the emperor as such.  A hearty handshake has worked in the past.  This line of criticism is similar to when Obama bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia.  Obama is head of the most powerful nation in the world.  If anything, people should be bowing to him!  Of course, this is a man with no respect for American exceptionalism, and goes around the world apologizing for America's past mistakes without having a spine with his body.  The fact that he was able to bow tells me there's still some curvature left, so I personally hope that he grows a pair, but again, I'm not exactly going to hold my breath.