The End of the Republican Party

I said if

You're thinking of

Being my baby

It doesn't matter if you're black or white 

I said if

You're thinking of

Being my brother

It doesn't matter if you're black or white 

          Michael Jackson 1991

Right now the country is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. Congress is split 1-1, and virtually everyone predicts that the upcoming presidential election will be tight (For my prediction, see here).  What you seldom hear discussed is who will be winning elections in the long term, say 20-40 years out.  I think the reason for this is most people feel like accurate predictions cannot be forecast that far into the future, and this particular discussion has to focus on race, which most people feel uncomfortable talking about.  I think you can make an accurate prediction, however, and I'll blog about anything.

          The Republican Party is going to lose virtually every election in the future, and that is based mainly on the birthrate of blacks and Hispanics.  The two demographic groups in the country that have the highest birthrates are blacks and Hispanics. You may have read the recent report showing that for the first time more than half of all new births in this country are from minorities.  The demographic experts tell us that whites will be the minority in the US by 2050.

          This is fantastic news for Democrats, and cataclysmic for Republicans.  The reason is simple; blacks and Hispanics vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.  More than 60% of Hispanics usually vote Democrat (although Bush did much better than this in 2004) and close to 90% of African-Americans typically vote Democrat.  I may or may not do a blog about why I think that's the case, but I don't think these voting patterns are going to change. 

          The bottom line is that Republicans better enjoy their election victories now, because they're not going to last.

          The interesting thing is, as the country becomes racially much more diverse, we may ultimately become more politically homogenous.  The Republicans will realize that without agreeing to more liberal positions that the Democrats favor, such as gay rights, Dream Act immigration reform, etc., they will have little chance of attracting new voters. Don't be surprised if by midcentury, and maybe a lot earlier than that, this country is much more homogenously liberal, at least on social issues.

Have a good night everyone.

JR

                   

For-Profit Synagogues

               Money changes everything

We think we know what we’re doing

We don’t know a thing

It’s all in the past now

          Cyndi Lauper 1984

          Here is a random thought tonight.  Would synagogues be more efficient, financially stronger, and less annoying if they were private companies, as opposed to tax-free charitable organizations?  Why is this important? Because synagogues don't really work financially (I’ve heard the same about churches, but I don’t have first hand knowledge).  The dues never cover all the operating expenses, so you know what happens next.  There is a constant stream of requests throughout the year to guilt you into paying more. 

You know the lines by now: “Our annual campaign”, “We want 100% participation”, “We’re having a dinner of honor for (insert name of great guy/ gal here), so please give to the shul to thank them for all their hard work” (by the way, as an aside, I love these people.  No, I luuuuuv these people.  Anyone who does a service for free that I benefit from immediately becomes one of my best friends).  Since I and most other members believe in the mission of the shul, we agree to pay more, and the shul lives to see another day.  You end up with the situation of smart, educated people who are not salesman frequently asking other smart, educated people for money.  Neither really enjoys it.

          We've become so accustomed to this way of running synagogues, that we never stop to ask is there a better way.  For me, whenever there's a shortage of money my first reaction is always: 1) Can the free market work it out? and 2) Is the government interfering?  If the answer to the second question is yes, the answer to the first question becomes no, and you end up with money shortages.

          In the case of religious institutions, we obviously have government interference because everyone gets a charitable deduction on their dues, which we all of course love.  It therefore becomes impossible for an individual to even think about running a for-profit synagogue, because nobody is going to pay dues that are not tax-deductible because of the competition.

And if an individual could compete with a for-profit shul?  Well obviously he (or she) would run it like any other business that's designed to make money.  He would make it as attractive and efficient as possible in order to have customers.  Just like any other business, if people were happy with the product he was delivering they would keep paying every year, and the owner would do well financially.  Otherwise the synagogue would go out of business.

The question is, is religion different than other businesses? Well yes and no.  For people like me in which religion play such an instrumental part of my life, the synagogue is a far more important entity for me than say, a restaurant or gym.  It forms the center of a community that is essential for helping convey to my children the values I believe in (2^nd aside tonight: the shul I currently go to is fantastic).  But God made the rules, and the rules are that religion operates under the same free-market principles as any business.  If I'm satisfied with the variables that make up a good shul (I like the Rabbi and the people, it matches my religious outlook, the dues are fair, etc.) I’ll stay a member; if not I’ll find another one.  Same goes for the restaurant.  If the food is good and the prices are reasonable I'll be a repeat customer.  If not I find another place to eat.

Similarly, a private individual starting up their own synagogue would have to provide acceptable services at a reasonable price.  There would be no more begging for money; just a set dues structure in whatever creative manner the owner could think of.  The congregants would either pay it or not.  He’d put all his effort into finding a financial system that not only barely keeps the shul open but makes it thrive.  You know why?  His financial life depends on it.  They’re his Benjamins, which makes all the difference.

Further, the owner could no longer rely upon volunteers.  He couldn't guilt people into doing work for free for the good of the community, as everyone would know that they're basically doing free labor for him.  For example, the owner of Prime Grill can’t say, “I know that steak cost $20, but I'm doing an annual campaign now and ask that you send me another $10 in the next three months or I'll be out of business.  I’m looking for 100% customer participation”.  Likewise, when people come in to eat, he couldn't say, “Could you do me a favor and for the next 15 minutes move some tables around for me?  I'm having a big event tonight and I really could use your help”.

The bottom line? I'm torn on this one.  Usually by the time I end these blogs I have a strong opinion one way or the other.  Not this time.  My gut tells me that private synagogues would be be financially stronger and provide better services for the community than not for profit, but I'm not sure.  Maybe religion really is different.  The amount of volunteer hours that is put into my shul on a monthly basis is astronomical.  Then again, the amount of paid hours that is put in by employees in for-profit businesses is far greater.

You know what? Now that I've had 41 minutes to think about it I think a for-profit synagogue would do better.  In any event, we’re never going to find out.

Have a good night everyone.

JR