“Alice's Adventures in Wonderland,” 1972.
A prospective convert to Judaism asked Hillel to teach him the entire Torah while he stood on one leg. Hillel replied: “That which is hateful unto you do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole of the Torah, the rest is commentary. Go forth and study.”
I learned this story as a child in Yeshiva Flatbush elementary school. The lesson created a profound moral landscape. It also taught the importance of brevity, the ability to neatly summarize complex thoughts.
Torah education is great preparation for a screenwriter.
I was thinking about this story the other day when a friend from the movie business, an agent, asked me why I was a Conservative. We were on the phone, both of us rushed, there was not a great deal of time.
I pondered a moment, took a deep breath and said:
“Liberals believe in rights for selected groups that leads to an outcome engineered by the state. Conservatives believe in equal opportunity for all individuals where the state gets out of the way. Liberals champion rights; Conservatives freedom. Now, go read The Constitution.”
My friend said nothing for a long moment, then asked me if I thought Warhorse, the new Spielberg movie, would go through the roof.
Anyhoo.
Thomas Sowell elaborates on the differences between Conservative and Liberal ideology with “Alice in Liberal Land.”
The strange and bizarre characters found in “Alice in Wonderland” have counterparts in the political vision of Liberal Land today. Among the most interesting of these characters are those elites who are convinced that they are so much smarter than the rest of us that they feel both a right and a duty to take all sorts of decisions out of our incompetent hands — for our own good.
In San Francisco, which is Liberal Land personified, there have been attempts to ban the circumcision of newborn baby boys. Fortunately, that was nipped in the bud. But it shows how widely the self-anointed saviors of Liberal Land feel entitled to take decisions out of the hands of mere ordinary citizens.
Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner says, “We’re facing a very consequential debate about some fundamental choices as a country.” People talk that way in Liberal Land. Moreover, such statements pass muster with those who simply take in the words, decide whether they sound nice to them, and then move on.
But, if you take words seriously, the more fundamental question is whether individuals are to remain free to make their own choices, as distinguished from having collectivized choices, “as a country” — which is to say, having choices made by government officials and imposed on the rest of us.
The history of the 20th century is a painful lesson on what happens when collective choices replace individual choices. Even leaving aside the chilling history of totalitarianism in the 20th century, the history of economic central planning shows it to have been such a widely recognized disaster that even communist and socialist governments were abandoning it as the century ended.
Complete article at the Washington Examiner.
Ariel Chaim Avrech, ZT'L, May His Righteous Memory be a Blessing.
14 Comments
Liberals are concerned with engineering societal outcomes while Conservatives are concerned about ensuring individuals’ opportunities.
In movie parlance, I think of Spock’s climactic scene in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn where Spock sacrifices himself in order to save the rest of the crew. As he is dying, he says “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one” It is classic Liberalism. It is ironic that the next movie is based upon the resurrection of Spock. We could debate whether is was a Christian-based theme, or if the studios merely needed Spock to insure that the cash flow of the series continued.
While I see Spock’s act as heroic – akin to a soldier throwing himself on a grenade in order to save the rest of the platoon – I see it as a personal philosophy, not a societal code worthy of governing a community or a nation.
I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Rabbi Norman Lamm
(For two yrs in EMC, I took every course he gave)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nicely phrased answer.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Kishke:
Thanks so much. I’m trying to get it down to one perfect sentence. Obviously, I’m no Hillel.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Imagine what Roman society was like in those times, in contrast to the kind of society one would have if everyone followed Rabbi Hillel’s summation of the Torah.
It really shows what it means to be Godly, and it must have been a radical idea for that potential convert to contemplate.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Franny:
Astute observation. In fact, the Talmud tells us of several righteous converts from pagan Rome to Judaism.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
A prospective convert to Judaism asked Hillel to teach him the entire Torah while he stood on one leg.
Back in shrouded mists of the last millenium, when I was at YU, Rabbi Lamm explained the above as follows:
The prospective convert was in all probability a Roman, and when he asked this question, it was recorded as “Al Regel Achahs” (on one leg). Rabbi Lamm said, that in Latin, Regula means ‘Law’ or ‘Principle’.
Accordingly, the Roman asked Hillel if he could explain the Torah on One Principle, (not while standing on one leg), and Hillel then gave his Golden Rule answer.
Happy Thankksgiving, everyone !
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Exdemexlib:
Thanks so much for the excellent commentary via Rabbi Lamm. BTW, which Rabbi Lamm, Norman or Maurice?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“one leg?” you had me in a panic; I thought you were on crutches or something.
Rabbi Hillel’s ”one leg” was just a line or so. Yours is much longer.
I’m glad you wrote “Conservative” and “Liberal” with capital letters, since the ideologies are different from the adjectives.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Batya:
Thanks so much for your concern. I’m fine. And yes, mine is much longer. I am no Hillel. But then, who is?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
“Liberals believe in rights for selected groups that leads to an outcome engineered by the state. Conservatives believe in equal opportunity for all individuals where the state gets out of the way. Liberals champion rights; Conservatives freedom. Now, go read The Constitution.” Robert J. Avrech
Just put the above on my FB status. If you will tweet it I will retweet….
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Jackie:
I took your advice and tweeted it. I needed three tweets to do it. A Tweetsay. (Tweet Essay)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I believe, that if (or should I say when? ) we meet G*d he will have all Truth explained simply .
“That which is hateful unto you do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole of the Torah, the rest is commentary. Go forth and study.”
Can anything be explained simpler but have such profound truth?
And your explanation of liberals vs conservatives is a take-home quote.
I think most of the most elegant designs – in anything – boil down to a simple explanation – from an atom to the solar system – which is comprised of (?????) atoms.
Better get back to work, but happy Thanksgiving to all of you…
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Bill:
And the best movies are built around two simple premises: Love and Revenge. All other narratives are commentary.
Go forth and watch movies:-)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0