A Jewish refugee who fled Nazi Europe as a child, Fred chose America over a soccer career after being liberated by General Patton’s army. His decision reflected a belief in the country’s ideals—not just its opportunities. Though he could have become a lawyer, he instead built a life grounded in discipline, service, and a strict interpretation of fairness.
His values were shaped by survival. Having been hunted for his faith, he insisted on equality of opportunity over guaranteed outcomes. He supported pathways to citizenship for those who sought it through legal means, but he also believed in consequences for those who broke the law. “He expected others to do likewise,” his son later said, referring to the sacrifices his father had made.
Fred’s approach to governance mirrored Madison’s warning about unchecked ambition. He had witnessed firsthand how institutional collapse under authoritarianism, what he called Gleichschaltung, eroded freedoms. When neo-Nazis attempted a rally near his Skokie home in the 1970s, he opposed their speech but also defended the need for legal guardrails against violence. Free speech, he argued, did not extend to incitement.
His views on education were equally direct. Teachers, he believed, should prioritize core skills, reading, writing, arithmetic, and hold students accountable. He distrusted systems that rewarded effort over achievement or tolerated misconduct. This discipline extended to politics: he was horrified by the dehumanizing rhetoric he saw in modern discourse, even if he didn’t have a term for it like “stochastic terrorism.”
Read Also: AI Sneaks Into SaaS Contracts, Sparking Legal Concerns
Fred balanced compassion with firmness. He had been helped by America’s generosity but insisted that aid came with responsibility. Crime, he knew from experience, thrived in chaos, but so did tyranny when law enforcement overreached. His stance on self-defense was absolute, against foreign and domestic threats, but he drew the line at Schmitt’s “state of exception,” which he associated with Nazi-era abuses.
What set him apart was his refusal to take ideological sides. He was a “radical moderate,” as his son described him, someone who sought trade-offs over absolutes. Thomas Sowell’s idea that “there are no solutions, only trade-offs” aligned with his worldview. America, he believed, was a work in progress, a “more perfect union” requiring constant adjustment, not ideological purity.
His son, reflecting on the 250th anniversary of the nation, wonders how Fred would react to today’s political divisions. Would he approve of the erosion of institutional checks? Would he see the same dehumanization he’d fled in Europe? The answer, judging by his life, is clear: he would demand balance. Not just between rights and responsibilities, but between mercy and justice, between unity and accountability.
Leave a Reply