Recently during breakfast I pointed out to my wife an article in The New York Times that piqued my interest as someone with a background in British history and politics. The piece concerned the likelihood that the next head of Britain?s Conservative Party would be a Jew – one Michael Howard, M.P., the son of Romanian immigrants who grew up in Wales.

I remarked on the fact that the account referred to Howard’s chance to walk in thefootsteps of 19th-century British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli, whom the newspaper wrongly referred to as Jewish (though he was proud of his heritage, Disraeli was baptized in the Anglican Church as a child). All of which provoked my wife to tersely ask, “What does any of this mean for us?”

Awakened from my musing by her characteristic clarity of thought, I could only reply, “Well, actually, nothing.”

The point being that Michael Howard’s ascent to the head of the Tories probably wouldn’t help or hurt America’s alliance with Britain; it wouldn’t mark a turning point in the struggle against the rising tide of European anti-Semitism; and it certainly wouldn’t help or hurt the State of Israel.

It just meant that one highly ambitious Jewish Brit was climbing, as so many American Jews have done, to the top of the proverbial greasy pole of politics. The days when we needed such triumphs as meaningful barometers of the acceptance of Jews are long gone. In the United States and, to a lesser extent, in Britain, the barriers to Jews have fallen in literally every sphere of life.

Such milestones are worth noting, and even celebrating to some extent, as we did with the nomination of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman as the Democratic vice-presidential candidate in 2000. But once these barriers are broken, Jewish politicians and others who trade on their shaky genetic ties with the Jewish people need to remember that they’re on their own. And that is a lesson that some of us often forget. 

Voting for people who remind us of ourselves is a common trait of American politics, and certainly not limited to Jews. As with other groups, many of us find it satisfying to see a fellow Jew do well in politics. This is indicated by the Jewish tallies for the Democratic presidential ticket in 2000, as well as for Sam Katz, a Republican who was defeated last week in his second attempt to become mayor of Philadelphia.

But while today Jews can be candidates for literally any office in the land, there’s still a difference between a Jewish candidate and being the Jewish candidate. Jewish issues, such as support for the State of Israel, social justice and education measures, are one thing. The religious identity of the candidate is quite another.

With the 2004 presidential election now just one year away, it’s worth pondering what obligations the presence of Jewish candidates places on Jewish voters. The answer is, of course, none.

Candidates need to be judged by their stands on the issues, including those of particular interest to the Jewish community. Those who believe that only Jewish candidates can properly represent our views on such issues simply haven’t been paying attention to the last 60 years of American political history. In that time, we learned that non-Jewish politicians were just as – if not more – likely to take the lead on Jewish issues, while their Jewish counterparts, more often
than not, backed off.

That was certainly the case during the Holocaust, when prominent Jews in politics shrank from advocating the rescue of European Jews. It was also true during the struggle for freeing Soviet Jewry in the 1970’s, when Sen. Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson of Washington stuck his neck out for the refuseniks.

This has also been illustrated when it came to advocacy for Israel. Most of the Jewish state’s best friends in Washington have been non-Jews, including many conservative Christians despised by liberal Jews. This is especially significant because, at the same time, some of those politicians least interested in Israel’s security have, in actuality, been Jews. That is not to say that some Jewish pols haven’t been courageous in their advocacy for Israel. But as political animals, they are also just as likely to take Jewish votes and Jewish issues for granted when non-Jewish pols will not.

Just as many of us have gotten over our communal obsession with who is or is not Jewish, some of us have reverted to our old insecurities. Though candidates for president with some sort of Jewish link have proliferated this year, only one of them, Lieberman, is really Jewish.

Yet even as we are right to take pride in the acceptance of a Joe Lieberman, his Jewish pride and Sabbath observance do not entitle him to a single Jewish vote next year – no more so than did Sam Katz’s strong Jewish identity did in Philadelphia.

Katz’s candidacy was seen by some as the harbinger of a historic Jewish shift to the right that included the strong Jewish votes for other Republican mayoral candidates, such as New York’s Rudy Giuliani. But though his views on some issues, such as school choice, were a refreshing shift from Jewish liberalism, Katz did not run as the standard-bearer of Jews in the GOP.

When the generally liberal Katz was asked if he saw himself as part of a Jewish trend toward the Republican Party, he flatly denied it. While he was resentful about the unwillingness of some local Jewish institutions to side with him against his Democratic rival (notably the nonpartisan Jewish Exponent), Katz rightly shunned the tag of ‘Jewish candidate.’

The same ought to be true of Lieberman’s bid for the presidency, which has not aroused the same enthusiasm as his previous run for veep. Lieberman?s endless compromises to gain more support have alienated many moderates and conservatives who used to be his biggest fans.

The obvious lesson here is that a Jewish presidential candidate who says he would be prepared to meet with Louis Farrakhan and would accept Hamas if the group suddenly gave up terrorism (and then would presumably pursue Israel’s destruction by peaceful means) is a lot less useful than a non-Jewish candidate who would do neither of these things.

So repeat after me: The personal interests of individual Jewish candidates have nothing to do with the interests of the Jewish community. Let those politicos who want tribal solidarity look to contributions from Native American casino owners. Jewish votes should be won on the issues.

Advertisement

SHARE
Previous articleDebunking The Myth Of Yitzhak Rabin
Next articleHold On To The Golan
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS. He can be followed on Twitter, @jonathans_tobin.