In Tablet Magazine today, Lee Smith offers us a brilliant explanation of why so many Jewsih leaders who have consistently criticized Obama’s views on Israel- including Alan Dershowitz and Mayor Ed Koch- are still supporting the President’s re-election. Smith calls it “The Alan Dershowitz Syndrome.” They don’t much like the President’s polcies, he argues, but they are concerned that if only Republicans support Israel, then the bi-partisan backing of the Jewish state could erode, and the left-wing opponents of Israel within the Democratic Party would triumph. Smith writes:
Without that broad agreement—that Israel is a valuable strategic partner in a region of vital U.S. interest, and a friend with whom America has shared values and principles—the relationship would be buffeted by all of Washington’s various political winds. By sticking with Obama in spite of all, Dershowitz and others are arguably protecting the bipartisan nature of the relationship, and at an especially vulnerable time.
As Smith writes, “ Accordingly, the old guard seems to believe that while Obama isn’t great for Israel, backing him is good for the health of the party and the Jewish state.” They want, in other words, to put off the time in which only conservatives support Israel, which would mean in effect the end of a nationwide consensus supportive of Israel.
A lovely rationalization.
Of course nothing like reality, but if it were a different world, that would be a strong argument.
What laughingly calls itself the “left” is oddly out of tune with reality, given that they resort to science to validate their claims to superiority over rube Republicans. I laid it out here: http://clarespark.com/2012/10/14/reality-and-the-left/.
Or try this one, which is a window on the British Left that has been puffing Martha Gellhorn (as recently impersonated by Nicole Kidman), but trashes her affection for Israel. See http://clarespark.com/2012/08/06/gellhorns-blind-spot-on-israel/.
Amazing logic…
They want to have bipartisan grief when Israel will be destroyed by the internationalist subversives-muslim alliance.
Excellent fighters indeed.
Pre- and during WWII, Jewish “leaders” tried to prevent American Jews from sending aid to their brethren in Europe because it might look like they were putting Jewish interests ahead of American interests.
Based on the logic presented, there should be an overwhelming vote for conservatives in minority areas, to prevent the perception that only liberals support minorities.
But then Jews – particularly the secular “intellectuals” – have always behaved like scared slaves, and still do. The Stockholm Syndrome writ large, on the tapestry of 2000 years of history.
[Please no comments on the anti-Semitic flavor of this opinion. I am Jewish and spent many years as a pulpit Rabbi in an Orthodox Jewish congregation.]
Not so much “Stockholm Syndrome” as “Kapo Syndrome.”
The great irony about all this, ideologically speaking? A Romney presidency will give “liberals” much of what they want, and also be better for saving and strengthening the social safety nets. The GOP is not so much “conservative” as it is centrist, and so is a safer home for old-line liberal social policy interests. The likely improved economy under Romney will also bring in more revenue for the safety nets. Liberal Jews, among others, are appallingly ignorant about the actual ideological spectrum, to their detriment (and ours).
The notion that this is a battle between “big government” and “small government” is a canard. This is an election to chose between the current COLLOSSAL government, and a return to merely HUGE government — trying to get down below the ENORMOUS government we acquired under Bush. It’s a matter of degree. We haven’t had mere “big” government since Eisenhower and JFK.
The brainwashing by past generations about the Rethuglicans is too deeply embedded. Even when they acknowledge that the current crop of Democrats do not mean them well they simply cannot get past their well inculcated prejudice.
I am almost embarrassed to be associated with such a mindless cult!
There was a time where I could see that reasoning but the last few years the lines have become very thin and they may be wishing they did vote Republican in the end.
Nah. Jews who support Obama do so because they are lifelong Democrats and social liberals. It is not about Israel for them. So long as he does not actually drop bombs on Tel Aviv they will still vote for him because they have never voted for a Republican.
BTW latest polls show most Israelis are pro-Romney.
What Josh said.
Let me make it more explicit: it might make sense for the historically illiterate to want to maintain a bipartisan consensus. However, given the strong association between anti-capitalism and antisemitism over the last couple of centuries, if not more, a sensible person would think that the only way to maintain Democrat support of Israel, and prevent Democrat demonization of American Jews, is to bring the Democratic party back “to the center”. That implies defeating the Obama Democrats.
It seems safe to assume that Dershowitz is not historically illiterate, so I can only surmise that he is in denial.
Dershowitz is politically illiterate. in the 90′s he referred to Clinton as a “centrist with libertarian tendencies,” which is utter nonsense. He’s probably clueless about Obama’s actual ideological leanings as well. Intelligence and education do not automatically confer wisdom and sound knowledge of areas outside one’s own field, and Dershowitz is one of many who lack knowledge, wisdom and skills outside of his chosen profession and training.
So if Republicans did not back Israel more Jews would vote for them because they would want to encourage broad bi-partisan agreement for support of Israel? Or would lack of Republican support drive Jews to vote more for Democrats? I think this rationalizing is an example of the Law of Infinite Cornucopia. The author is engaging in wishful thinking or the Jews are.
If I understand this post, Jews support those who are against Israel because if those who are against Israel lose, then only those who are in office will support Israel, this will be bad because the support won’t appear to be bipartisan. But, if they support those who are against Israel and these people win, then the there won’t be bipartisan support because the only people in office are the ones the Jews want to support, and these people are against Israel. Thus the policies that are put in place will more than likely be against Israel.
And people claim that the Jews run the world because of what? stupidity?
Sorry, that cow’s out of the barn and three miles away eating Mrs. Murphy’s daisies.
Would you Jewish supporters of Obama, support his solidarity with Hezbollah/Hamas/PLO/Muslim Brotherhood and their combined hatred of Israel? Wake Up! You will not have a second chance to correct this problem. Vote Obama out Now while you can!
There is a certain logic in that — if the Democratic Party leadership no longer has either a financial or prestige incentive to cater to the beliefs of American Jewish voters on Israel, they can let their full anti-Israeli freak flag fly.
But to believe that is the prime cause of the problem is to believe that people like Dershowitz or Koch already see the Democratic Party as some sort of unified non-factional force, with their support of whomever is in charge being the only thing holding back the tsunami of anti-Semitism. If they truly believe that if they opposed Obama there are no other alternative factions within the Party that can gain control of the Democrats’ foreign policy direction, it’s over already.
They’re all but saying if they don’t make waves and spout the proper party lines, maybe they can keep Obama from giving a speech like Vanessa Redgrave’s at the Oscars if he wins a second term. They’re also saying they believe if they did abandon the president, a future Democratic Party candidate could run on an overtly anti-Israeli platform and win, which would mean they would have to also have a huge party mechanism to convince voters someone like that is suitable for the White House.
Why would you even want to associate with a group of people you know hold your beliefs in contempt, and would dump you and Israel in a heartbeat if they didn’t need the campaign donations from Jewish voters? Because of isolationist Republicans during FDR’s term or because you think Pat Bucahnan still has a chance to take over the Republican Party?
John – Just a note: Until Pearl Harbor most of the country was isolationist, not only the Republicans. Remember, the Democrats were in control and I am sure if FDR had had their votes we would have been in the war much earlier, but he didn’t because their constituents wouldn’t stand for it.
Gallup has published a compendium of their major polls from the 1930s on.
There are several polls in 1941 on “isolationism” versus “intervention”.
Basically, about 20% had no opinion, about 20% were isolationist, and about 20% were interventionist. The remaining 40% supported all possible aid to the Allies short of war, even at risk of being drawn into the war. I don’t think one can call that position “isolationist”.
What those Americans hoped was that our aid short of war would be sufficient, and America would not have to send men to fight and die – but they would rather see America enter the war than have the Axis win. Which is why there was no majority for a declaration of war absent actual attack on the U.S.
The problem with them they are the “old guard”. They need to look outside the box, like my Dad’s and mom’s vote went to Reagan. The world aint what it used to be, every Jew that looks at the situation can clearly see who cares for Israel. Who will stand up for Israel. That’s why my vote goes to Romney.
A clever plan. Is it unconscious agreement or did some Jews get together and put it to a vote? Cat’s out of the bag now.
But, but … there are _good_ Nazis!
Social behavior is ultimately determined by deep emotions such as hatred and especially fear. With pogroms and extermination camps still in living memory, dread of the Eternal Aryan continues to lie deep within Jewish consciousness. In America the instinctive strategy for more than a century has been to triangulate through alliance with have-nots, primarily Blacks. This instinct continues to overpower rational analysis.
I think some of my co-religionists are brain-dead when it comes to voting their interests. Indeed, what I observe is that the Democrats are becoming progressively anti-Israel and anti-religion and anti-business. For the bulk of Jews who are attached neither to Israel nor to religion, the Democrat stance does not seem to be a problem. Eventually, though, the anti-business part may drive some of them to reconsider their voting patterns, but then again, maybe not. For better or for worse, those Jews, though, are disappearing through assimilation and low birth rates. What will be left will be a much more observant and a much more balanced group that is becoming increasingly Republican. (E.g.: We had a family over for Shabbath evening dinner; the older members of the family had been dyed-in-the wool Democrats for as long as I’ve known them – some 35 years; their sons though are Republicans; and surprise, surprise, the older family member are going to vote almost all Republican come this November.)
I suppose that Jews, being highly/extremely collectivist, their allegiance to the left is a given.
That collectivism is, fortunately, finally being driven down, slowly but surely.