Several of the Republican candidates for president have spoken about "taking back" the country. It's not entirely clear what they mean by that, though it sounds like standard political rhetoric and little else.

Take it back from what? Or from whom? The people of the U.S. voted for President Barack Obama, and he is our legitimate leader. Congress voted for his policies, and whether we agree with them or not, they are legitimate. The courts will decide whether the laws passed by Congress are constitutional. To suggest otherwise is dangerous nonsense.

Nevertheless, in difficult times it is right to wonder whether we have strayed so far from our roots and traditional values that we have lost our sense of purpose and find ourselves adrift. This may or may not be one of those times for the U.S., but it certainly appears to be one of those times for the state of Israel. The essence of Zionism after the foundation of the state in 1948 was socialist and egalitarian in nature, with individual self help that amounted to a spirit of national self help in the early, dangerous days of the Jewish state. Much of that spirit has ebbed away as Israeli prosperity and an increase in national security has turned the attention of so many Israelis toward the good life, or at least good living. The shameful treatment of the Palestinians at the hands of Israelis, once a prime issue in Israel, has faded from public view, relegating itself to the concerns of left-wing peace activists. All this, of course, is bemoaned by many Israelis, who feel the sacrifices of their fathers could soon be forgotten history.

But something else is happening that has far-reaching consequences for the peace and stability of the Middle East. That something else is the shackling of some of the freedoms and liberal values of which Israelis have been rightly proud and were central to their country's standing in the world community. For several months, the country has been consumed with a debate over a series of new laws and proposals that some Israelis fear are designed to stifle dissent, weaken minority rights, restrict freedom of speech and weaken the judiciary. One law in effect allows Israeli communities to exclude Arab families; another that imposes penalties on Israelis advocating a boycott of products made in West Bank Jewish settlements, and proposals that would subject the country's supreme court to greater political oversight (Newt Gingrich, who proposes greater political oversight of the federal courts, take note).

All this is taking place in an atmosphere of coarsened political debate, including death threats against prominent human-rights activists. President Shimon Peres, one of the country's founding fathers, has spoken out against the proposed new laws, but in Israel, as in the U.S., the country's politics have moved uncomfortably to the right. The Israeli rightwing fears the supreme court's support of dissent and wants to limit its role through greater political oversight. It is an argument often made by American right-wingers who also have little regard for dissent, despite the country's origins in organized dissent that eventually led to the fight for independence. There are those among the Israeli right-wing who equate concern for human rights, especially those of the Palestinians, as tantamount to treason. That is a dangerous path to go down.

Into this fraught debate over the erosion of democratic values in Israel, comes the fear of many Israelis, who for the most part are secular, over the rise of Jewish religious extremism and the threat it too poses to Israeli democracy. The ultra-Orthodox are a growing force in Israeli society, especially in Jerusalem. Like fundamentalist and radical Muslims, who are intolerant of more moderate Muslims , the ultra-Orthodox tend to be intolerant of other more moderate but observant Jews. In parts of Jerusalem, they insist on the strict separation of the sexes, even in public places. Their attitudes and actions have resulted in a storm of protest across Israel, because so many Israelis feel the country's liberal values are under assault on all sides.

The debate in Israel over the proposed restrictive laws and the rise of religious extremism is deeply influenced by the underlying national angst over the prospects for the nation's survival in the hostile arena of the Middle East. "Taking back" the country has a far deeper meaning in Israel than it does in the U.S.

William M. Stewart, a former U.S. Foreign Service officer and Time magazine correspondent, lives in Santa Fe.