Here's the thing: as a radical libertarian, I somewhat favored Paul as a candidate, though since I'm a libertarian socialist, he is not my ideal choice. But to me, his willingness to accept money from neo-Nazis elicits echoes of Europe’s re-embracement of right-wing extremism, the attendant resurrection of ethnic nationalism, and the growing success of far-right parties, many of which have taken over large swaths of European parliaments. This should be a cause of great concern to those of us in the antifascist community.

They say such things could never happen in America, but guess what: Here it is.

Now, I want him out of the running, and frankly, out of the Capitol. Those who pander to white nationalists and neo-Nazis have no place serving in the United States government, which exists to serve the most ethnically and culturally diverse nation on Earth, which counts among its citizens Jews and Zionists alike.

The following speech will be delivered at the United Jewish Communities
General Assembly in Nashville, TN, on Monday, November 12.

Enabling the next big Jewish idea
How Federations can facilitate the Jewish future
by Daniel Sieradski

Every so often, a conversation will arise in Jewish professional circles around "the next big Jewish idea." The question is asked, what's the next big thing that's going reinvigorate and renew Jewish life for an increasingly intermarried and disinterested American Jewry? What's the silver bullet that's going to save us from our own self-destruction?

Brandeis is currently offering a professorship and a six-figure salary graciously provided by Charles Bronfman to someone who can devise, if not a solution, a pathway towards a solution to this question.

Yet it is my belief that the next big Jewish idea will not be hatched inside a board room. It will not be the result of a research study. It will not come from within an institution at all. Rather, the next big Jewish idea will be the work of a young, independently minded individual seeking to address the needs of his or her own self or his or her own immediate community.

But the next big Jewish idea will not meet institutional funding guidelines -- or at least, that's what the rejection letters will say. It will be for any number of reasons: The project is too local; too global; too narrow; too ambitious; the subject too political; the creators too eccentric. Perhaps they're more creatively-minded than business-minded and are thus bad at writing grants. Maybe they're too young, or too idealistic.

And sometimes the grantmaker themselves are so disconnected from the realities of what the Jewish public needs -- like the funders who don't even have a computer on their desks -- that you're done before you've even started. Sometimes funders just don't get it; or they do get it and they feel threatened by it. They're afraid to give up too much control. They want safer bets.

Whatever the case, Jewish innovators who pursue the non-profit route are generally at the mercy of grantmakers, who often times are setting standards impossible to reach for folks who are just starting out. Funders want a lofty return on investment without ever taking real risks, ignoring the recommendations of even their own advisors, like the sociologist Steven M. Cohen who, in an October 2006 interview advised taking a more open stance to radical thinking, telling JTA "we need more exposure in the Jewish community to views which challenge our own."

For an innovator, the heartbreak accompanying this process can be debilitating. Getting turned down again and again when you believe in what you're doing so strongly... It's soul crushing. Exhausted by one failed grant application after the other, many fold up shop before their ideas ever see the light of day.

The next big Jewish idea, in fact, has probably already come and gone, and been shot down by no less than a dozen Jewish grantmaking organizations. And because the innovator will have no resources at his or her disposal with which to continue his project, he will probably walk away from it, crushed and discouraged, and a revolutionary idea that could have transformed American Jewry forever will never come to be.

It's all too familiar a story. In the past six years, I have encountered countless young Jewish innovators who are engineering incredible projects that will never see the light of day. I have even engineered a number of my own, that are currently flailing to stay above water. Take, for example, my website ShulShopper.com, an online service that enables people to find a place to daven that suits their needs and interests, and to rate and review their local congregations so as to help others find a place that works for them.  The YU Commentator called ShulShopper "the biggest revolution in the Jewish community since the internet was erected." Yet the site has remained in beta for nearly a year, with many pieces still broken and unable to be fixed, due to a lack of funding interest.

So where do federations come in?

Federations do some of the most important work in the Jewish community. They feed and clothe people, they support social services, they fund schools. These are things that are necessary and valuable.

Yet it's no secret that the Federation system is in a bind, desperate to maintain its relevancy to younger generations -- those who are passionately committed to Jewish life, as well as the disaffected.  Few of us out there living independent Jewish lives of our own making have much of an idea as to the value of Federations, which we perceive as bureaucratic dinosaurs that stifle creativity rather than engender it, or which otherwise represent narrow interests, and sideline alternative viewpoints.

As Richard Marker wrote for Jewschool in August 2005, "There is a profound disillusionment or frustration with established institutions. They are accurately not perceived as agile, responsive, or innovative. And because they typically have a broad agenda, requiring consensus decision making, involvement within them runs counter to the most current behavior among the most creative or passionate. Once upon a time, patience was sufficient; today, few people are willing to be long term apprentices in Jewish communal life when the rest of life requires and rewards other attributes. Thus, the most interesting and interested younger Jews would much rather associate with a start up or special interest group which reflects them rather than with an established, multipurpose organizations."

And yet we are nonetheless desperate for each other's attention. Federations want to attract a new generation of donors, and young innovators want support for their projects. Despite our differences, you need us and we need you.

There is a way for us to work together.

Traditionally, federations, like most funding agencies, invite applications from grant-seekers and then select among them. This allocation process certainly has its merits. But there's a downside as well; in fact several. One is that the selection process is imperfect; second it can be biased; and third, it breeds suspicion, alienation, and disgruntlement among both grant recipients and those who are rejected.

There have been some wonderful programs that Federation has supported, in particular Bikkurim, the incubator for new Jewish ideas, and the 6 Points Fellowship, which provides grants to new Jewish artists, that have been a boon to Jewish innovation. These programs provide precisely the type support which startup initiatives need in order to get themselves off the ground, and they are commendable and worthy of applause. I am proud to have been involved with several Bikkurim-supported initiatives as well as 6 Points as both a consultant and a contractor.

But perhaps these programs go too far in some respects, and not far enough in others. For starters, they are highly competitive, and offer only a few slots annually. Furthermore, they require participation levels that may be too much for individuals who are working a full-time job while running their project on the side. In addition, they bring the constraint of institutional politics to bear on participants' endeavors, imposing artificial limitations on creative thinking. In other words, they're not for everyone.

Let's imagine a different way of doing business. Federations provide for the infrastructure, the environment, the resources to allow for creative individuals and groups to grow in a way that requires no invidious distinctions or a process of selection.

Rather than a system of gatekeepers and shepherds, which discriminate and exclude based on whichever criteria, I believe what we need is an open infrastructure that lends itself to innovation.

We are overdue for establishing an open marketplace for Jewish ideas, bootstrapped by communal funds. Or as Jonathan Sarna called it in a recent JTA interview, what we need is more Jewish venture capitalism. "We only have to look at the high-tech industry," said Sarna, "to see that all ideas don't all pan out, but all you need is one Google or Mapquest to justify a whole lot of ideas that don't go anywhere."

The Jewish community was intended as a meritocracy. In the era of Judges, our representatives were chosen based on the merit of their Torah and their conduct -- how much their words and deeds resonated with others. Likewise, in chassidut, a leader is chosen based on his merit, his followers developing a sense of dvekut derived from the inspiration they find in their rebbe's teachings.

Likewise we should let the market decide what "the next big Jewish idea" is, based on its merit and its resonance with the community.

Certainly, there ought to be some type of criteria or some sort of way of judging which projects truly add value to both the individual and communal Jewish experience.  However, that criteria should ultimately be determined by the public affected by these projects.  Furthermore, funders should have greater tolerance for failure. Success breeds success but failure often happens because great ideas don't get the encouragement or the resources they need.

So here's what I propose:

1. Create resource hubs for small to mid size local Jewish organizations at every federation. Organize free networking events and public seminars.

2. Build an online archive of webinars on non-profit management, marketing, fundraising, technology, and so forth. Enable innovators -- who, again, are probably working full-time jobs in addition to saving the Jews -- by letting them learn at their own pace, whenever they want, from wherever they want. Empower innovators by producing enriching, informative, and impactful media, and by making it freely available online.

3. Provide fiscal sponsorship, ie., the ability to take tax deductible donations, to any applicant meeting basic criteria, thereby enabling any initiative to get off and running.

4. Develop tools and resources that are universal and reusable. For example, instead of giving grants to individual Jewish orgs needing to develop websites, develop and deploy a hosted content management system that specifically addresses the needs of Jewish organizations.

5. And finally, and most importantly, create a Jewish Robinhood Fund. The Robinhood Fund is a website that facilitates microlending and microgiving. Users browse the site, find causes they're excited about, and are able, right there on the spot, to donate or lend money to that cause.  Think of it as an online, interactive Slingshot Journal -- one that provides access to both grant-makers and grant-seekers.  Not only should Federation embrace this model, but they should match funds where possible.

By laying the groundwork for innovation, by enabling innovators to get up and running, and by not discriminating based upon the institution's own objectives, but rather by giving all ideas an opportunity to flourish, Federations can provide an invaluable communal service that will elicit the respect and appreciation of young innovators and their constituents alike, so that they can say, "Ah! This is what Federation does for me. This is why they're important, and this is why they deserve our support."

In failing to do so, the distance between today's institutions and tomorrow's young Jewish leaders, will continue to grow by leaps and bounds.

Thank you.

Just to put a stop to this idiocy before the comments to my Ron Paul post are flooded with it: I absolutely believe in the right to every American citizen, no matter what their beliefs, to political representation. However, no citizen has the right to deprive others of their rights due to their ethnic, cultural, or political identity.

White Nationalists seek to use the democratic process to alleviate Jews and other ethnic and political minorities of their civil and democratic rights. The democratic process is, in fact, the process by which the Nazi Party came into power in Germany. The Nuremberg Laws soon followed.

Therefore, while White Nationalists are certainly entitled to believe whatever they wish, and to vote for whomever they choose, it is my responsibility to insure the rights of myself and my fellow citizens, by insuring that the preferred candidate of those who seek to deprive us of our rights fails miserably on Election Day.

Continue reading...

Ron Paul has a Jewish problem.

Last month, the dark horse Republican candidate was barred from the Republican Jewish Coalition’s Candidate’s Forum due to his stance against providing further foreign aid to Israel.

Typical of his view, at an event on September 11 of this year at Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies, Paul argued for withdrawing from the Middle East, telling his audience that “Israel is quite capable of taking care of itself” — though interestingly adding that US policy has “hurt Israel tremendously.” Paul also downplayed the threat Iran poses to Israel, saying that even if Iran does develop nuclear arms, that it would not be a serious danger to Israel, which, he added, possesses roughly 300 nuclear weapons of its own.

Paul’s position towards Israel is not innately anti-Jewish, nor is it necessarily even anti-Israel — particularly with such a caveat about America impeding Israel’s interests. Such a statement lends weight, for example, to Zionist extremists who wish to terminate Israel’s Herodian dependence on the US, such as the members of Zionists for Ron Paul, a group run by American expatriates now living as religious settlers in the West Bank.

Nor is it a particularly uncommon position, especially within paleoconservative circles. Pat Buchanan led the charge in March of 2003, writing in The American Conservative that neoconservatives participating in and advising the Bush administration were steering the United States into wars that were not in America’s interests, but rather Israel’s.

Now fed up with the neocon’s wars abroad and the diminishing of civil liberties at home, many conservatives are rallying behind Paul, whom they view as the only Republican candidate who isn’t in the pocket of the Israel lobby. They have helped him become an Internet sensation — the Republican Howard Dean, if you will — who in the last quarter raised over $5 million, outpacing more mainstream candidates like John McCain.

Even with his hardline protectionist stance, Paul has managed to garner the support of Jewish Republicans and Libertarians alike, some of whom have banded together to form an ad hoc coalition called Jews for Ron Paul, which condemned the RJC’s decision to bar the Congressman from their Candidate’s Forum.

Yet, much to his Jewish supporters’ chagrin, Congressman Paul’s willingness to stand up to the neocons has also had the effect of making Paul a popular candidate among those from whom Presidential candidates would typically not desire support: Bona fide antisemites.

Indeed, Ron Paul has become the most popular candidate among right-wing extremists, including white separatists, neo-Nazis, and conspiracy theorists who believe that “the Zionists” were behind 9/11. This group includes Frank Weltner, creator of the antisemitic website JewWatch.com, who in a YouTube video, accuses the “Zionist-controlled media” of attacking Paul’s candidacy. Paul has also received favorable coverage from the Vanguard News Network, a White Nationalist news organ, members of Stormfront, an online neo-Nazi community, as well as the National Alliance, the “mainstream” White Nationalist group featured prominently in Marc Levin’s 2005 film Protocols of Zion.

Of course, Congressman Paul cannot be held accountable for the views of his extremist supporters, unless he publicly acquiesces to those views. Yet, when his extremist supporters begin providing a substantial amount of campaign funds, things get a bit dicier. And that’s Paul’s biggest problem.

According to the Lone Star Times, White Nationalists have become a noticeable source of financial contributions to the Paul campaign. Indeed, even Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, and one of the most notorious neo-Nazis in America, has personally contributed $500 to Paul’s campaign.

Though it’s true that Paul’s campaign has no control over who sends them money in advance, once it becomes apparent that a neo-Nazi leader is sending money, any sensible politician who does not wish to be identified with neo-Nazism should send the money back. Not so for Ron Paul, however, whose campaign is still making up its mind as to whether or not to return Black’s money.

Paul’s spokesman Jesse Benton told the Lone Star Times:

At this time, I cannot say that we will be rejecting Mr. Black’s contribution, but I will bring the matter to the attention of our campaign director again, and expect some sort of decision to be made in coming days.

Frankly, this is a no-brainer. Any other candidate would unequivocally reject that money as soon as its donor’s identity was known. That Paul’s campaign needs time to think about it is shocking.

Also of concern is the fact that Paul’s campaign has ignored my repeated attempts to interview the Congressman for JTA, the Jewish newswire service by which I am employed. I had intended to write a story about the Congressman, and to provide him with the opportunity to distance himself from his extremist supporters, to clarify his position on Israel, and to state his case to the Jewish community. Yet, after three weeks of repeated telephone calls, two chats with his Deputy Communications Director, and several left voicemail messages, I have yet to receive a callback to schedule an interview.

Which leads me to conclude the following about the Congressman from Texas: Ron Paul will take money from Nazis. But he won’t take telephone calls from Jews.

[This essay was cross-posted at Orthodox Anarchist. Daniel Sieradski responds to comments here and explains his own Libertarian take on Paul here.]