More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

GET UPDATES FROM Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Portman's Bold Attack on an Anti-Semite and Huckabee's Untimely Critique

Posted: 03/ 6/11 12:21 PM ET

Just as I was about to write a column praising Natalie Portman for attacking racist John Galliano, along comes Mike Huckabee to attack her as a unmarried-and-pregnant-negative-role-model. There's a time for everything, Mike. And this was the wrong time. But before I respond to Mr. Huckabee -- a man for whom I have much respect -- let me first tell you why Ms. Portman elicited my praise.

Our world constantly excuses evil. The Hitlers and Stalins of this world are spoken of as 'sick,' as if they committed their evil out of delusion and mental illness. That's how you now hear people speaking about Gaddafi -- he's a weirdo, he's high as a kite -- instead of calling him what he really is: evil and cruel to the core.

Over the past two weeks Hilary Clinton and President Obama have been saying that Muammar Gaddafi has 'lost the legitimacy to rule,' surely, the most painfully laughable phrase uttered by a Secretary of State and President of the United States in recent memory. Er... he only now lost the legitimacy to rule? And while he tortured and imprisoned political opponents for forty years and blew up airliners and discotheques he had legitimacy to rule? President Obama, who shook Gaddafi's hand in Italy, has this Messianic hang-up where he believes that he can somehow transform brutal killers like Gaddafi into upstanding citizens instead of boldly declaring them to be the evil killers they are.

About five years ago I wrote a column that said that although most of my close friends are staunch liberals, I myself could never embrace liberalism because it refuses to hate evil. And the inability of the two most powerful people in the United States to get up and say 'Gaddafi is, was, and always will be a despot' is sad proof of my earlier conviction.

So it was with glee that I read Ms. Portman's courageous statement in the wake of John Galliano exposing himself as a Jew-hater. When Mel Gibson made a film depicting Jews as Christ-killers, Hollywood, and the Jews of Hollywood -- with the notable exception of my former agent Ari Emanuel -- excused him and continued to work with him. Even after he got drunk and called us 'F-ing Jews' who incite all the world's wars, Hollywood still cast him in films. It wasn't until we discovered that he also hates women, African-Americans, and Lord knows who else that he was finally shunned.

But this time when a famed designer, an 'artist,' made his admiration for Hitler known (was it all those stylish SS uniforms that caught your eye, John?) a leading actress who had just won an Academy award told him to go to hell. Saying she was 'shocked and disgusted,' she declared herself proud to be Jewish. Party on Natalie!

So perhaps Mr. Huckabee should have thought twice before choosing this particular moment to attack a Hollywood hero who stood up to evil.

Not that Huckabee doesn't have an important overall point. It is disconcerting that few in Hollywood seem to believe that children should be brought into the world amid the security of marriage and surely our stars of the big screen would agree that most children love to see Mom and Dad as husband and wife.

But having said this, Ms. Portman is quite simply the wrong target. Mr. Huckabee's ire ought to be directed toward the men who are the real problem.

Once there was a code of honor among men to treat women with commitment and respect. If you lived with a woman and wanted to have a child with her you granted her the ultimate compliment of publicly declaring your love and commitment to her by making her your wife. Marriage is a where a man selects one woman and simultaneously deselects every other woman on earth, thereby establishing the object of his live as the one and only.

Today, however, there is a broken code of male honor. Men treat women casually and hedge their bets. And why not? If you can have a woman commit to you without having to reciprocate the whole marriage thing seems a bit gratuitous.

This is a regular mistake made by social conservatives. Last week Richard Land, the head of the Southern Baptists, published a column in the Wall Street Journal enjoining religious conservatives not to give up the fight on abortion, the most divisive of all social issues in America. But why can't we find language that is actually unifying? Both the left and the right agree that respect for women is a paramount virtue. Yet, most abortions are the product of men sleeping with women whom they don't love, impregnating them, and abandoning them. These are not men but inseminators, hormonally-driven walking sperm banks. Abortion thrives in a society that has witnessed the end of love and the rise of the hook-up. Yes, women have to learn to respect themselves but more importantly parents and schools must inculcate within men a desire to be gentlemen again.

So instead of beating an endless drum on abortion, why not focus on the real problem. Is there anyone of any political persuasion who would condone men using women as masturbatory material and disappearing from their lives?

Granted, men who have a child with a woman in a serious relationship, like Portmans' beau, Benjamin Millepied, are not in this category and indeed he is her fiancé. Still, there are way too many men who leave the picture as soon as the woman is pregnant.

In his comments Huckabee himself acknowledged that it's the men who are the problem, which makes his attack on Portman even more curious. "You know, right now, 75 percent of black kids in this country are born out of wedlock," he said. "61 percent of Hispanic kids -- across the board, 41 percent of all live births in America are out of wedlock births. And the cost of that is simply staggering." But it's not the women who are abandoning these kids, Mike, but the men.

And the same applies to so many of these recent racist tirades, nearly all of which are being committed by broken and messed up men.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, "America's Rabbi," is the international best-selling author of 25 books and has recently published "Renewal: A Guide to the Values-Filled Life," and "Honoring the Child Spirit: Inspiration and Learning from Our Children." Follow him Twitter @RabbiShmuley.

 
 
 

Follow Rabbi Shmuley Boteach on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RabbiShmuley

 
 
  • Comments
  • 210
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RichTBikkies
Trainee Basil Fawlty; practising Victor Meldrew
01:47 PM on 03/16/2011
Rabbi, you are a candidate for "my favourite conservative". I speak as a tax-and-spend, bleeding-heart liberal.
03:15 PM on 03/08/2011
Have any opinion ... do anything you wish that you can get away with ... fuss at whom you disagree with ... live that life to its fullest extent ... but in the end Grantland Rice will still express who wins & who loses
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
callanish
12:21 PM on 03/08/2011
Are we still listening to Huckabee these days? I thought his relevance in the bigger scheme of things ended a long, long time ago.
photo
triplettam
Mind Bender
12:02 PM on 03/08/2011
Bravo, Rabbi. Great post.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RichTBikkies
Trainee Basil Fawlty; practising Victor Meldrew
01:51 PM on 03/16/2011
Fanned and faved. Nomore to be said.
photo
ChaCubed
Republicans: the Antichrist
09:26 AM on 03/08/2011
Quote: "In his comments Huckabee himself acknowledged that it's the men who are the problem, which makes his attack on Portman even more curious. "You know, right now, 75 percent of black kids in this country are born out of wedlock," he said. "61 percent of Hispanic kids -- across the board, 41 percent of all live births in America are out of wedlock births. And the cost of that is simply staggering." But it's not the women who are abandoning these kids, Mike, but the men."

How is that "Huckabee acknowledging that men are the problem"??? Sounds like all he's doing is trashing blacks and Hispanics for having children out of wedlock; tossing in a statistic for "across the board" rather than a statistic for whites, .
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sam1jere
Open-minded, sports lover, Red
05:21 AM on 03/08/2011
...If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same...
...Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son! - Rudyard Kipling, "if"

Truth in essence is a person (Christian worldview), as well captured in John 14:6. Truth is NOT an excuse, or mitigations meant to explain away things. Such are referred to as excuses, mere speculation and attempts at second guessing.

Wrong must also be absolute and easily definable. One proof that humans know what's wrong? Why do they look for so many words to explain or justify things? Abortion is wrong, not merely because of the loss of life(s) involved, but because the acts that led to it in the first were wrong. Sex is not bad, but based on lust and related vices, it takes on a whole new negative dimension.

It's a result of the nature of this world, lopsided nature, that the Natalie Portmans' are easier to condemn than the murderous despots who rule men.

Huckabee's attack on Portman is based on some truth, just like her own attack on anti-semites like Galliano, mutually exclusive but intersecting at Truth Highway. Both need to be courageously said out loud at the end of the day.

Honesty is a foundational value for any society. Truth must return to its ultimate place. We must make it so second nature we even take it for granted.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
LeftLeanWing
RightKickFoot
03:49 PM on 03/08/2011
Huckabee's attack on Portman is based on some truth .....
Huckabee's attack was pretentious and mean-spirited....
Even wrong... since she is Marrying the father of her child

And consider this.....
Why didn't he go after Bristol Palin?,
who is NOT marrying the father of her child ..
because he made a video ( according to her )
05:05 AM on 03/08/2011
2 things:
As a liberal married to a conservative, my husband would claim the same - (liberals won't "hate evil" or something like that). Not true. It's that my definition of evil is much more strict than yours. Conservatives who are all about the word "evil" tend to claim that anything they do not understand/approve of is "evil". Wrong. It happens often that my husband snap judges something he knows little about as "evil". If/when we take a deeper look, often (not always, but VERY often), there were facts that he didn't know that add context. I'm not for relativizing everything, but I am for recognizing when I am not the expert on something.

2 - I totally agree with the author about society failing to blame men. Why rant about "single mothers"? That demonizes the many women who have done what the father hasn't - stuck around and stuck it out to take care of the baby. The "single mother" term also lumps in women who's husbands have left them (etc etc) and deserve nothing but praise for the job they're doing. Why don't conservatives rail about "absent fathers"? The mothers aren't without blame, but does anyone think they WANT to be raising a child alone? No. We need to stop placing the blame solely at the feet of women. Stop telling young girls ONLY to respect their bodies and tell it to the boys too. The whole double standard has far more consequences than anyone wants to admit.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rowsdower
I'm Rowsdower. Zap Rowsdower.
02:08 AM on 03/09/2011
Trying to separate the world into "good" and "evil" may be a favorite sport for some, but show me a powerful nation and I'll show you a nation that's got some atrocities to answer for here and there. So if you're trying to point your finger at the "evil" nations, that's arguably all of them, ours included. It's far more helpful to try to take each nation and event in its own context and act so as to foster peace and reduce suffering. It's not always clear what is the best way to get there, but a results-oriented mindset is a good place to start. A finger-pointing mindset is less likely to get anywhere fast.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BowlingForRevenge
~ rabid yellow dog dem tiger mom & proud of it ~
01:15 AM on 03/08/2011
I agree with everything the rabbi says...except
"Granted, men who have a child with a woman in a serious relationship, like Portmans' beau, Benjamin Millepied, are not in this category and indeed he is her fiancé."

AND why isn't Millipied in that catagory?
Remember Levi Johnston was a committed "fiance" too.
photo
ChaCubed
Republicans: the Antichrist
09:29 AM on 03/08/2011
Ideally, all mothers and fathers would live together in a home with their children, however, whether or not a man does this is not an indication of his commitment to his children.
11:05 PM on 03/07/2011
I'm probably not a liberal as most for being white/female/independent/socialist who voted for Obama, and will again. But I am not shy about declaring evil, evil. I know what evil is when I see it, and when I feel it. My step-father had Ted Bundy eyes if that tells you anything. As for Hollywood pregnacies and marriages, unfrtunately, that does not gaurantee a good seceure marriage. My first husband I were engaged first, had a wedding date planned, and then had to move the wedding date up buy six months. He started cheating on me at during my secon trimester, and didn't stop until he got caught and left me with three children to raise and him playing child support roulette. Sometimes marriage is not always the answer, but it used to be.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
b4pangea
Insert clever micro-bio here
09:18 PM on 03/07/2011
I gather the thrust of Huckabee's comment was more or less that Natalie Portman's opinion holds no value because she's a "fallen woman" or something stupid like that.

Notice how grumpy and indignant these old-white-guy types get when you try to apply that sort of standard to THEM >coughGINGRICHcough
09:09 PM on 03/07/2011
Nowhere in any of the discussions about Natalie Portman have I seen where she holds herself up as a role model. She is living her life, period. She is not offering herself up as a role model to anyone.

Bristol Palin, OTOH, was held up as a role model by her mother and by the campaign (and by Huckabee) as a fine example of Christian Family Values.

Hypocritical much?
06:16 PM on 03/07/2011
Bringing a child into this world is not a path to be taken lightly.
Abortion, has been practiced in many ways for thousands of years.
Previous to modern sterile environments most abortions were life threatening
events for the reluctantly pregnant woman.

This issue is fully owned fully by the pregnant woman, her body her choice.

Men do not carry, so they suffer none of the dangers of pregnancy.
A mans sperm is simply a bit of errant fluid which happens to have the
ability to begin a process culminating in a potentially viable human baby with successful
delivery of the properly gestated fetus.

Sorry to be so scientific, but we do live in a time of knowledge.
Antiabortion forces would have us all fall back to the time when we believe in
witches and conception without intercourse.

In my book there is not a man or woman on this earth that should be telling woman what they can do with their bodies.
06:00 PM on 03/07/2011
Huck is running for the MONEY, period. He knows he cannot beat Obama in a honest race. Sure husker will take the south and perhaps some midwest states. It will not be enough to overcome the East and West Coasts and the large industrial states. Close race in electoral votes. Obama wins hugh popular vote, GBA
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lightbulb10
05:54 PM on 03/07/2011
This is so late on the wagon!
05:18 PM on 03/07/2011
Unless the Rabbi or Huckabee can explain why Bristol Palin's out of wedlock child bearing was not criticized and Natalie Portman's was criticized, I will have to wonder whether their religion or politics was the over-riding issue.