Jussie Smolletts, Us, and The Lying Piper of Queens

Would the fiery pants fit if you said, “Liar, Liar, pants on fire!” to your neighbor? To someone you don’t particularly like? To a politician? Perhaps the fiery pants would fit if you said this burning rhyme to the mirror? Are we becoming—or worse: have we become--a nation of liars? Stragglers, loners, losers—are those who refuse to lie naive, nitwitty, nuts?

I think a good case can be made for the proposition that there has been a marked increase in lying over the past fifty years or so. Wearing metaphorical fiery pants while wearing cool clothes has, I think, become the style. (Take what I write with a pinch of salt, please—I am old, and old people tend to idealize the past. I don’t. think I do, however. I acknowledge that life before the civil rights movement was not much of a life for millions of my fellow citizens. I also acknowledge that Joseph Goebbels was (again metaphorically) alive and well in the America of my birth. Still…)

There is evidence for this trend. Lying is certainly associated with narcissism—for the narcissist, truth is more or less what is subjectively to the narcissist's advantage—and this malady has been demonstrated to be on the increase. Jean Twenge, a psychologist and coauthor of The Narcissism Epidemic reports that millennials are scoring significantly higher on The Narcissistic Personality Inventory, which measures the sad, ongoing journey to selfie from self.

I am therefore confident that writing about the increase of the narcissist's pick-me-up, namely lying,  is not sour grapes from a bitter old man; I’m writing about sour grapes that are being consumed by the present generation as if they were candy. Sugar coated selfy grapes might seem sweet at first, but they are certainly not part of a heart-healthy diet!

I will provide two egregious examples of narcissistic lying. The first is the case of Jussie Smollett. The second is the pants-on-fire guy in the White House.

It seems to be quite likely that Mr. Smollett staged a hate crime in which he played the victim. He likely did this to gain sympathy, specifically. to get a raise—(He was working as an actor on a cable show, and was already extremely well-paid.)

Let us assume he is guilty, which is very likely. How did he react when the mounting evidence indicated that he was lying. He double-downed on his lies. He asserted that he was telling the truth “from day one.” As a “man of faith” he claims that he could not be lying. He wouldn’t be “his mother’s son” if he were not telling the truth.

How can someone lie so shamelessly?

When I was an elementary school student in the 1950s, I remember what was then a familiar story, albeit an apocryphal one: George Washington and the Cherry Tree. The young Washington received a gift of a hatchet from his father when the former was six years old. George used it to take  a few swings at one of his father’s cherry trees. "Who did this," asked his angry father. The future president famously responded “I cannot tell a lie—I did it!" His father embraced him, informing him that telling the truth was worth a thousand cherry trees.

Yes, this anecdote never happened, but that’s not the point. The lesson to be learned was that telling the truth is essential. “Truth is relative, and, by the way, You’re special!” was not part of the 1950s elementary school curriculum.

My wife who emigrated from India in 1972, learned similar lessons at school. She remembers a little anecdote about a guru. A woman wanted her son to stop eating sweets; he wouldn’t listen to her, and continued to eat sweets on the sly. So she brought him to a guru. “Swami, please tell my son to stop eating sweets—it is ruining his health." The swami was silent. The mother couldn’t believe the silence ringing in her ears. At last the guru told her to return with her son in a week. When they returned, the guru lost no time in telling the son not to eat sweets. "Thank you, Swami” the mother replied. “But why were you silent last week?” “I had to give up sweets first. A man of truth must practice what he preaches."

It’s a kid’s story, true, but it contains a lesson kids must learn if they are to become non-narcissistic adults: develop a moral compass that always points to integrity. Tell the truth, even if it puts you at a disadvantage. It’s not all about you!

2.

A German professor once said to our class, “Viele im Kleinen haben gedacht was Hitler im Grossen gedacht hatte.” (Many (in Germany) thought in lower-case what Hitler in upper-case thought.”  I never forgot that sentence. Big Liars can infect us and lead us over the precipice. It happened before.

Perhaps Smollett can be viewed as one of those little liars, a chemical drip precipitated into reality by the pernicious solution concocted by the Big Liar at the top. 

Can you imagine what boy-Trump would have replied to his father? “Daddy, what’s cherry tree? What’s a hatchet?” Pressed further,  he would surely have blamed it on a bad black boy named Obama.

Our current president has reportedly told over two thousand lies since he’s been in office--a dismal precedent. How many people have descended into rodents blissfully following the Pied Piper of Queens? Many, I’m afraid.

Trump is without a doubt a malignant narcissist. Good for him is what serves him; Evil for him is what opposes him—that is, Morality. How long can this go on? Can we afford to wait until it’s raining smolletts? Where will Truth take shelter then?

 Our house is on fire! Where can Truth take shelter now?

Among senators; among members of Congress; among smolletts; beside our President? We are Truth’s ambassadors! We cannot tell a lie! Yeah, right.

The Failed Moccasin Test of Ilhan Omar

I begin with a joke. 

First, a few words about the context in which the joke arose. When Hitler came to power in 1933, he wasted no time in advancing his heinous persecution of Jews. He initiated a boycott of Jewish businesses shortly after he became chancellor; the notorious Nuremberg laws, partially inspired by persecution of blacks in the Jim Crow American South, soon followed. Jews were being fired everywhere in Germany, "Deutschland erwache, Juda verrecke" was the mantra. (Roughly translated as “Awake, Germany, Jewry die!”). The persecution, horrible as it was, was mild compared to what came later. In the early years of Hitler’s Germany, Jews were still permitted to participate in their cultural institutions. (Kristallnacht came five years later, in 1938).

Now we’re ready to tell a very sad joke. Somewhere in Germany, a Jewish man named Daniel saw his friend, Samuel,  reading a newspaper in the park. It turned out to be a copy of der völkische Beobachter, the infamous Nazi daily edited by Alfred Rosenberg, who was executed by the Allies in 1946. “Samuel, why are you reading that Nazi rag?” Samuel replied, “When I read a Jewish newspaper, I get depressed. I read about firings, confiscation of property,etc.; each edition contains articles about the increasing humiliations of our people. When I read the Nazi paper, however, I learn that we control the world!”

Versions of this joke, alas! are still with us. The recent statements of Ilhan Omar, one of only two Muslim women in Congress, are but one example. What is the reason behind America’s support of Israel? “It’s all about Benjamins, baby!”—Money, she believes, has "hypnotized" the American people into support for Israel. She even hinted that Jewish support of Israel among Americans signified primary allegiance to a foreign power. Her comments were correctly judged to be “anti-Semitic tropes,” for which she has apologized.

I wish that was the end of it, but it isn’t. I must admit that I’m getting nervous. I am liberal in my political views; what’s making me uncomfortable is what appears to me to be a rising  unfair criticism of Israel by fellow liberals. There are many examples. A recent Op-ed article in the New York Times informed readers that it’s time to take Israel to task for its treatment of Palestinians. Marc Lamont Hill, a good man, gave a talk at the United Nations that severely criticized Israel. (He ended his talk advocating one country, Palestine, from the Jordan River to the sea. If you’re a supporter of Israel, you know what that means—the end of Israel).

No reasonable person, I think, would give Israel an A for its treatment of Palestinians. Daniel Barenboim, for instance, has spoken eloquently about this issue. He is not, however, advocating for the end of Israel as a Jewish state, which would occur if many critics of Israel got their way.

In my opinion, critics of Israel who do not support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state have failed what I call “The Moccasin Test". They might have walked a mile in Palestinian moccasins, but are apparently unable to walk an inch in Jewish ones. No matter what your political affiliation is, I invite you now to "change moccasins" and walk with me a while.

Judaism is, of course, a major world religion; Jewish culture has had a culturally positive influence way beyond the number of Jews worldwide. (Where would Broadway be without Jews?)

There are about a billion Muslims in the world; there are about a billion Christians as well. Astonishingly, there are only about eighteen million Jews in the world. There are many states with a Muslim or with a Christian majority, but only one Jewish state, Israel. Israel’s area is only a tiny fraction of the areas in which Muslims are the majority.

Not only for cultural reasons, but due to the horrible history of anti-Semitism in the past, it is imperative and fair that there be a Jewish state, both as a source of pride and as a refuge for Jews all over the world. (For instance, if anti-Semitism becomes toxic in a country, the Jewish state will accept Jewish refugees as citizens. (I recently watched on French TV a special on rising anti-Semitism in France; about 20,000 Jews have made the Aliyah journey back to their ancient homeland because they no longer felt safe in France—France has about 800,000 Jews).

Granted, the necessity for a Jewish state entails some restriction on Israel’s non-Jewish citizens. But non-Jews in Israel can attend institutions of higher learning, can serve in the Knesset, and are free to celebrate their religion, etc. (The situation is admittedly far from perfect).

Much of the criticism of Israel, however, is decidedly unfair. Churches and mosques, for instance, are protected in Israel; there is freedom of worship. In contrast, churches, not to mention synagogues, are under siege in many Muslim countries of the Middle East. There was once, for instance, a thriving Jewish community in Iraq—can anyone dare assert that it would be safe for  Jews to live in Iraq or Iran today?

Any impartial person—a disappearing breed—should understand why a Jewish state is a necessity. Walking even a half mile in Jewish moccasins should be enough to convince anyone why this is so.

Politicians must be judged, just like everyone else, that is, by how well they adhere to a form of the Golden Rule. Accepting the necessity of a Jewish state thus does not shield Israel from criticism regarding the treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories. (There is no Jewish equivalent, however, to form a Jewish version of the caliphate; even the most fanatic settlers have no territorial ambitions beyond Judea and Samaria, the West Bank).

If you comprehend the necessity of a Jewish state, you understand why the widespread Palestinian demand that Palestinians who were expelled from Israel during wars cannot be allowed to return. Israel considers this position to be non-negotiable; rightly so, in my opinion. Obviously, if Muslims became the majority in Israel, the Jewish state would cease to exist. Wars have consequences!

(Note: the notorious BDS or Boycott Israel movement--especially notorious if you're wearing Jewish moccasins, advocates "...promoting the right  of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in U.N. resolution 194").

I fear that many liberals, and many others as well, view Israel as being anti-democratic. If you walk even an inch in Jewish moccasins, you realize that Israel is by far the most democratic nation in the region. Yes, Ilhan Omar has said some “anti-Semitic” tropes, which is bad enough, but the criticism of Israel—as a neo-colonialist state, for instance--is much more insidious and widespread among those without a sense of history.

Unfair criticism of Israel is but one example for the necessity of  periodically “switching moccasins.” It should be common practice, but, in an increasingly polarized world, it isn’t. Will it ever be?